Blacker v. Slown
| Decision Date | 11 April 1888 |
| Docket Number | 13,213 |
| Citation | 16 N.E. 621,114 Ind. 322 |
| Parties | Blacker et al. v. Slown |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Owen Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
S. O Pickens and W. A. Pickens, for appellants.
D. E Beem and W. Hickam, for appellee.
Appellants brought this action against appellee to recover the amount of a bill of goods which they claimed to have sold to him.
Appellee answered by a general denial, and, also, that he purchased by sample from appellants, through their travelling salesman, goods of the kind described in the complaint, and that they were warranted to be of the best material and substantially made; that they were of such inferior quality, and so defectively made, that they were worthless; that the defects were such as could be discovered only by use and wear, and could not have been discovered at the time the goods were received, by the use of ordinary care; that he purchased the goods for the retail trade, and that, relying upon the warranty on the part of appellants, he warranted them to his customers; that, when their worthlessness was discovered by use and wear, he was compelled to receive them back from his customers, and furnish to them other goods in their stead; that by reason of all of which, "and the loss of trade and dissatisfaction, and annoyance to him thereby, he was damaged," etc.
The jury returned a general verdict for appellants in the sum of $ 183.65, and also answers to interrogatories propounded by appellants.
The interrogatories and the answers thereto are as follows:
Upon the answers to the interrogatories appellants moved for judgment in their favor for $ 275.25, notwithstanding the general verdict.
They claim that the answer to the second interrogatory shows that the jury adopted and acted upon a false basis in arriving at their general verdict, and that, therefore, they should have judgment for the full amount stated in the answer to the first interrogatory.
The general rule is, as stated by their attorneys, and as laid down in the case of Hege v. Newsom, 96 Ind. 426, that in a case like this the measure of damages for a breach of warranty is the difference between the actual value of the goods at the time of sale and what would have been their value had they been as warranted.
We do not think, however, that, upon the answers to the interrogatories, appellants are entitled to judgment for what the goods would have been worth had they been as warranted. The first interrogatory involves an admission that the goods were sold under a warranty, and that they were not such as appellants warranted they should be, for the jury were thereby required to state, and did state, what would have been their value had they conformed to the terms of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial