Duffie v. Pratt
Decision Date | 17 June 1905 |
Citation | 88 S.W. 842,76 Ark. 74 |
Parties | DUFFIE v. PRATT |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court CHARLES D. GREAVES, Special Judge.
Affirmed.
Wood & Henderson, for appellants.
The contract was not a severable one. 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 95; 75 Ill. 205; 41 N.E. 465; 43 N.W. 864; 44 P. 544; 84 Am. Dec 728.
Leslie & Huff, for appellees.
The contract sued on was a severable one, consisting of several distinct items, and founded on a consideration apportioned to each. Beach, Contracts, § 731; 40 Cal. 251; 66 Pa.St 351. Appellants failed in their defense as to the quality of the goods. Mech. Sales, §§ 1320, 1328; 7 Allen, 29; 30 Oh. St. 671; 1 Wall. 359.
This action was instituted by Walter Pratt & Co. against S. M Duffie & Co. upon the following written contract:
Handkerchief Extracts, assorted, on easel
$ .75
$ 3.00
$ .10
Handkerchief Extracts, assorted, No. 745
2.00
4.00
.25
Handkerchief Extracts, assorted, No. 755
4.00
12.00
.50
Sachet Powders
.75
3.00
.10
Persian Violet Perfume
.40
.80
.05
.75
Farina Cologne
4.00
4.00
.50
Velvet Talcum Powder
.75
.10
Roger's Hair Grower
6.00
6.00
.75
Benzo Hazel Cream
.25
Mentholated Cream
4.00
8.00
.50
Invisible Toilet Powder (white)
2.00
.25
Invisible Toilet Powder (flesh)
2.00
.25
Pratt's Velvette
6.00
6.00
.75
Pratt's Dentifrice
Rosalana
12.75
.50
Princess Tissue Developer
6.25
6.25
.75
Pratt's Toilet Soap
.75
.10
Quinine Hair Tonic
6.00
12.00
.75
Foot Relief
2.00
.25
Invisible Complexion Powder (white)
4.00
4.00
.50
Invisible Complexion Powder (flesh)
4.00
4.00
.50
Invisible Complexion Powder (Brunette)
4.00
4.00
.50
Cherry Lip Pomade
.25
Pratt's Shampoo Powder
4.00
.25
1/2 Doz.
Bulk Sachet Powder, violet
1.50
1/2 Doz.
Bulk Sachet Powder, rose
1.50
1/2 Doz.
Bulk Sachet Powder, heliotrope
1.50
1/2 Doz.
Crushed Sachet Powder, carnation
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, White Lilac
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Frangipanni
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Snow Lily
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Jockey Club
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Heliotrope
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Blue Gentian
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Jasmine
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Red Carnation
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Crab Apple Blossom
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Swiss Violet
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Wild Thorn Blossom
4.00
4.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Crushed Violets
6.00
6.00
1 Bottle
Pink Bulk Perfume, Persian Rose
6.00
6.00
Total amount of this order
$ 194.20
1 Atomizer.
1500 Circulars advertising this line of goods.
1500 Circulars describing the pictures going with the Perpetual Advertising System.
Name and address of purchaser printed on above circulars.
1 Graduate.
6 Portfolio, No. 5607, containing 10 sample pictures belonging to the Advertising System.
100 Booklets, "Suggestions."
8 Sterling Silver Thimbles, assorted sizes.
97 Envelopes containing advertising and drafts good for one Sterling Silver Thimble each, mailed by Walter Pratt & Co. to a list of
97 names furnished by the purchaser.
1 Walter Pratt & Co. Regulation Oak Show Case, wood doors and wood shelves. Size 21 in. wide, 48 in. long, 40 in. high.
In making the foregoing contract, plaintiffs were represented by a traveling salesman, who sold the goods referred to in the contract to the defendants by samples exhibited to them at the time the order was made. The goods were shipped, and were received by the defendants on the 9th of March, 1902. On the 17th of the same month they notified the plaintiffs of the receipt. Defendants tested the White Lilac perfume, which was sold to them at the price of $ 4, and, on a day subsequent to the 17th of March, 1902, refused to accept the goods, because the lilac perfume did not correspond to the sample by which it was sold to them. They did not test any of the remainder of the goods by the samples by which the same were sold.
According to the terms of the contract, the defendants waived the warranty and accepted the goods, and thereby became bound to pay for them, having failed to give notice of the failure of the goods to comply with the warranty within five days after they (defendants) received them. Pratt v. Meyer, 75 Ark. 206, 87 S.W. 123.
But the defendants asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:
The court refused to instruct the jury as asked, but instructed them as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Grayson-McLeod Lumber Co. v. Carter
-
Pratt v. Metzger
...such condition must be fulfilled upon his part before he can interpose the breach as a defense. 28 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 830; 75 Ark. 206; 76 Ark. 74; 71 Iowa 101; 36 Kan. 439; S.W. 789; 3 Wash. 603. The vendee must show that the conditions have been complied with. 14 Pa.St. 211; 21 Barb. 23......
-
Southern Engine & Boiler Works v. Globe Cooperage & Lumber Company
...there was no liability under the contract. 75 Ark. 206; 2 Mech. on Sales, §§ 1380, 1384; 6 N.W. 46; 44 Iowa 237; 5 Neb. 482; 79 Mo. 264; 76 Ark. 74; 78 Id. 2. No recovery can be had for the broken parts, because the contract was for delivery on board cars at Jackson, Tenn. Nor because the m......
-
Thomas v. Schaad
... ... Ark. 128, 206 S.W. 143; Southern Eng. & Boiler Works ... v. Globe Cooperage & Lbr. Co., 98 Ark. 482, 136 S.W ... 928; Duffie v. Pratt, 76 Ark. 74, 88 S.W ... 842; Pratt v. Meyer, 75 Ark. 206, 87 S.W ... 123; Heer Engine Co. v. Papan, 142 Ark ... 171, 218 S.W. 202 ... ...