Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Turpin

• Decision Date: 10 November 1906
• Citation: 55 S.E. 925,126 Ga. 677
• Parties: CAROLINA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. et al. v. TURPIN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

55 S.E. 925

126 Ga. 677

CAROLINA PORTLAND CEMENT CO. et al. v. TURPIN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 10, 1906

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a manufacturer of bricks submits to his customers a number of bricks as samples, and stipulates to sell others as good in quality, such stipulation amounts to an express warranty that the bricks sold and to be delivered will be of as good quality as the samples submitted. (a) Where goods are sold under an express warranty as to quality, the vendee is not bound to inspect before acceptance, and if they afterwards be found to be defective, damages arising from such defect may be recovered against the vendor; but if they be defective and the vendee knows of the defect, and with such knowledge accepts the goods, he will be deemed to have waived the defect, and, in a suit for the purchase price, will not be heard to recoup damages arising therefrom. (b) There was no issue for submission to the jury, and the court did not err in directing the verdict.

Error from City Court of Macon; Robert Hodges, Judge.

Action by W. C. Turpin against the Carolina Portland Cement Company and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Affirmed.

Lane & Park, for plaintiffs in error.

Steed & Ryals, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON J.

In this case the record discloses that the plaintiff, being a brick manufacturer, contracted to sell to the defendant, a dealer in bricks, certain quantities of bricks of quality equal to samples which were exhibited. Bricks of the number contracted for were shipped by the plaintiff to the defendant. Upon receipt of the bricks they were inspected, and, the defendant contends, were deficient in quality. Knowing of the alleged defects, the defendant paid the freight charges and accepted the bricks, making complaint as to quality, but nevertheless selling them to his customers--some at the market price, and others at a reduced price on account of the defective quality. When sued for the purchase price, the defendant pleaded the deficiency in quality, and sought to recover damages. Unless the defendant's claim for damages was meritorious, the evidence was such as to eliminate all issues and demand a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for. After hearing all the evidence, the judge decided that there was no merit in the defendant's claim for damages, and thereupon directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full...