Catchings v. Hacke
| Decision Date | 29 January 1884 |
| Parties | S. F. CATCHINGS ET AL., Respondents, v. J. H. HACKE ET AL., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, ADAMS, J.
Affirmed.
OVERALL & JUDSON for the appellants: Waiving all controverted questions of fact, we submit that there is no implied warranty of quality of chattels in the absence of fraud, and the buyer has full opportunity to inspect.--Benj. on Sales (3d Am ed.) sects. 644, 656, 657; Barnard v. Kellogg, 10 Wall. 389. In the absence of an express warranty of quality, it is the duty of the buyer to inspect.-- Pearce v. Copp, 67 Barb. 132, cited in Benj. on Sales, sect. 700, note; Chicago Packing and Prov. Co. v. Tilton, 87 Ill. 547.
PHILLIPS & STEWART, for the respondents, cited Whitaker v. McCormick, 6 Mo. App. 114.
Plaintiffs purchased of the defendants, by oral agreement on the floor of the Merchants' Exchange, three car loads of “No 2 white mixed corn,” which the defendants were to deliver by shipping the same, free, to Harris & Bro., at Meridian, Miss. The shipment was made, and the buyers paid the price agreed upon, which amounted to $1,361.18. Afterwards, it appeared that the article shipped was not No. 2 white mixed corn, according to the established mercantile classification, but was a grain of inferior quality and value, having no commercial grade. The corn was sold by the consignees for a price less than that paid by the plaintiffs, and this suit is for a recovery of the difference between the two values. The court, sitting as a jury, heard the testimony, and gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff, for $346.46.
The defendants attempt to show that the terms of the contract required of them nothing more than a delivery of corn then stored in the East St. Louis grain elevator, in what was known as the regular No. 2 white mixed bin of that elevator; that the shipment was in fact made from that bin, and elevator receipts to that effect were surrendered by the defendants; wherefore, there was no violation of their contract. It distinctly appears from the finding of the court, under its declaration of law, that there was no such provision in the contract; that the defendants sold the corn by a specific description of the article, and not by a designation of the place of storage. It is impossible to see how there could have been any other finding upon the testimony in the record.
A point is made upon the fact that the plaintiffs declined to have the grain inspected, at their expense, before the shipment. The inspection rules of the Merchants' Exchange were put in evidence. We can not perceive that they have any bearing on the controversy. The seller, making delivery without the presence of the buyer, may well fortify himself with an inspection, so as to prove that the goods delivered were of the sort bargained for. But the buyer needs no protection, beyond the undertaking of the seller. To say that he can not deny fulfilment by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ungerer And Company v. Louis Maull Cheese And Fish Co.
...on Sales, p. 608 (5 Ed.).] To breach such a condition "is as if A. should sell a horse to B. and deliver a cow instead." [Catchings v. Hacke, 15 Mo.App. 51; see, Whitaker v. McCormick, 6 Mo.App. 114; Gaus v. Magee, 42 Mo.App. 307.] It was a distinct breach of this implied warranty or condit......
-
Philbrick v. Kendall
...(Wolcott et al. v. Mount, 36 N. J. Law, 262, 266, 13 Am. Rep. 438; Jones v. George, 61 Tex. 345, 349, 48 Am. Rep. 280; Catchings v. Hacke, 15 Mo. App. 51, 53. See, also, White v. Miller, 71 N. Y. 118, 129-131, 27 Am. Rep. 13). Strictly, however, such words do not constitute a warranty, eith......
-
Ungerer & Co. v. Louis Maull Cheese & Fish Co.
...on Sales (5th Ed.) p. 608. To breach such a condition "is as if A. should sell a horse to B. and deliver a cow instead." Catchings v. Hacke, 15 Mo. App. 51. See, also, Whitaker v. McCormick, 6 Mo. App. 114; Gaus v. Magee, 42 Mo. App. 307. It was a distinct breach of this implied warranty or......