Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Gibson
| Decision Date | 17 December 1887 |
| Parties | THE DOWAGIAC MANUF'G CO. v. GIBSON |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Wright District Court.
ACTION on a promissory note. There was a judgment upon a verdict for a small part of the amount claimed by plaintiff. He appeals.
AFFIRMED.
R. H Whipple, for appellant.
Williams & Baker, for appellee.
I.
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 ten dollars.
II. The defendant was permitted, against plaintiff's objection to introduce evidence showing the 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 defendant had set up in his counter-claim as a ground of defense and recovery on his part. The fact that the fraud and misrepresentations were made before the contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial