D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Poindexter
| Decision Date | 11 January 1896 |
| Citation | 34 S.W. 299 |
| Parties | D. M. OSBORNE & CO. v. POINDEXTER et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Greer county court; Jarrett Todd, Judge.
Suit by Poindexter & Tidwell against D. M. Osborne & Co. for damages for breach of warranty. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Chas. M. Thacker and T. P. Clay, for appellant.
This suit was filed by appellees against D. M. Osborne & Co. for damages for breach of warranty of one of their reaping and self-binding machines, and for special damages, in the waste and loss of wheat, of two bushels to the acre, in harvesting their wheat crop in 1891, consisting of 80 acres of wheat, at 75 cents per bushel, caused by the imperfect action of the machine in failing to bind the wheat properly, and, instead thereof, scattering it over the field. The petition alleges that plaintiffs bought the machine from D. M. Osborne & Co., through its agents, Van Leer & Simpson, at Mangum, Greer county, Tex., on the 15th day of June, 1891, and that said agents knew that plaintiffs were buying the machine to cut and bind their wheat crop for that year, and, in order to induce them to purchase the Osborne machine, made a verbal warranty, in substance, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Independent Shope Brick Co. v. Dugger
...& Co. v. Hefner, 2 S. W. 861, 67 Tex. 54, 59; Murray v. Putman, 130 S. W. 631, 633, 61 Tex. Civ. App. 517; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Poindexter (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S. W. 299, 301; Danner v. Fort Worth Implement Co., 45 S. W. 856, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 621; Gascoigne v. Carey Brick Co., 104 N. E. 7......
-
St. Mary's Oil Engine Co. v. Allen-Morrow Co.
...67 Tex. 54, 59, 2 S. W. 861; Danner v. Fort Worth Implement Co., 18 Tex. Civ. App. 621, 45 S. W. 856, 857; D. M. Osborne & Co. v. Poindexter (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S. W. 299, 301; Ash v. Beck (Tex. Civ. App.) 68 S. W. 53, 55; E. F. Elmberg Co. v. Dunlap Hardware Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 234 S. W. ......
-
Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v. Terpening
... ... 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) 199; Abraham Bros. v ... Browder, 114 Ala. 287, 21 So. 818; Osborne & Co. v ... Poindexter (Tex. Civ. App.) 34 S.W. 299; Houser & Haines Co. v. McKay, 53 Wash. 337, 101 P. 894, 27 L. R ... A. (N. S.) 925; Doornbos ... ...
-
Doornbos v. Thomas
...an action for breach of warranty. He cannot insist that a contract has been rescinded, and yet recover on the contract." In Osborne & Co. v. Poindexter, supra, we find this "The plaintiffs might have tendered back the machine, and demanded their notes and money, or, at their option, might e......