Campbell v. Wray

Decision Date15 September 1892
Docket Number572
PartiesCAMPBELL ET AL. v. WRAY
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

From the Lawrence Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

J Giles and S. S. Dornan, for appellants.

M Crooke and M. Owen, for appellee.

OPINION

CRUMPACKER, J.

Campbell and Hubbard sued Wray upon a written contract for the purchase of a "Whitely Binder and Truck" according to the tenor following: "Messrs. Campbell and Hubbard, Bedford, Ind.:

"May 21, 1891.--You are hereby authorized to procure for me one Whitely binder and truck for same, to be shipped to Zelma by the 10th day of June, 1891, for which I agree to pay you one hundred and thirty dollars, or in lieu of paying cash, to then execute notes payable as follows: One-half September 1, 1891; one-half September 1, 1892, including interest at the rate of 6 % (six per cent.) per annum after September next; payable at Stone City Bank, Bedford, Indiana. Subject to the provisions of the manufacturers' printed warranty thereon, a copy of which is this day received. PRESTON WRAY."

The defendants answered in two paragraphs, the first of which was the general denial, and the second set out the warranty and alleged that the machine, after having been fairly tested, failed to fulfill its requirements, in that it failed to cut all of the grain, but left upon the ground and wasted large quantities of it, and failed to bind grain properly, specifically stating the particulars in which it was deficient. It was also alleged in this paragraph that the defendant duly notified plaintiffs of the failure of said machine to perform the conditions of the warranty, and they promised to adjust and repair it, but entirely failed to do so or to attempt it; that the machine was wholly unfit for use and was worthless.

The warranty is as follows:

"The Whitely Binder is guaranteed to be well made, of best material and workmanship, and when properly set up, adjusted and operated in accordance with our directions, will do as good work as any other binder in the market, and this warranty is given upon the following conditions: If said machine does not work successfully under the management of the purchaser and local agent, notice must be given to us by letter or telegram, addressed to Amos Whitely & Co., Springfield, Ohio, advising us fully as to the name and residence of the purchaser, who, together with the local agent, will furnish the necessary facilities, and aid in testing the machine in the presence and under the direction of a competent person, to be designated and sent by us for that purpose, after receiving such notice; and if the machine does good work under his direction, it shall be kept by the purchaser, and continued use shall be considered conclusive evidence that it fills the warranty. But if, under the direction of the person designated and sent by us for that purpose (after receiving such notice), the machine does not work as above warranted, it may be returned and the payment will be refunded.

"WARRANTY ON THE WHITELY BINDER.

"This warranty is only valid and binding upon Amos Whitely & Co. where the sale of the machine is evidenced by the purchaser's order given therefor, subject to the provisions of this warranty, and then only when countersigned by the agent and delivered to the purchaser without alteration, interlining or erasure.

"(Signed) AMOS WHITELY & CO.

"(Countersigned) CAMPBELL & HUBBARD."

Endorsed upon the back of the warranty was the following:

"This contract is made this way: If Amos Whitely has made an assignment or broke up, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT