Dowagaic Manuf'g Co. v. Gibson

• Decision Date: 17 December 1887
• Citation: 73 Iowa 525,35 N.W. 603
• Parties: DOWAGAIC MANUF'G CO. v. GIBSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

73 Iowa 525

35 N.W. 603

DOWAGAIC MANUF'G CO.

v.GIBSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 17, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Wright county.

Action against G. C. Gibson on a promissory note. There was a judgment upon a verdict for a small part of the amount claimed by plaintiff. He appeals.R. H. Whipple, for appellant.

Williams & Baker, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The defendant, in his answer, admits the execution of the note, but, as a defense, sets up a failure of consideration, alleging that the note was given to plaintiff for the purchase price of two harrows and one seeder, and that one of the harrows was never delivered to him. He further sets up a counter-claim in the following language: “That the defendant was induced to purchase said machinery through the false and fraudulent representations of the plaintiff's agent, made prior to the execution of the note, to the effect that said machinery was well adapted to the use for which it was intended; that the said articles are ready sale and well worth the price agreed to be paid, etc.; that, in fact, all the said representations were false and fraudulent, and that said machinery was not adapted to the uses represented; that it was of no value and unsalable; that the defendant is an agricultural implement dealer, but did not know whether the representations were true or false, but, relying upon said representations, he purchased the goods in question, and that, on account of the worthlessness of said goods, and the false representations of plaintiff, he has been damaged in the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, for which he asks judgment.” The plaintiff claimed to recover the amount of the face of the note, $95.55, with interest. The verdict and judgment were for plaintiff in the sum of $10.

2. The defendant was permitted, against plaintiff's objection, to introduce evidence showing representations as to the character, quality, and value of the implements for which the note was given, made by plaintiff or its agent before the written contract of sale was made, and before the note was executed. It is insisted that the evidence was erroneously admitted, for the reason that it tends to establish, by parol, a warranty, when the contract was in writing, and could not, in that way, be varied, changed, or extended. But the evidence does not tend to establish a warranty, and was doubtless not introduced and admitted for that purpose. It was, however, competent to show fraud and misrepresentations, which defendan...