Franklin Motor Car Co., Inc. v. Ratliff

• Decision Date: 20 April 1922
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 289.
• Parties: FRANKLIN MOTOR CAR CO., INC., v. RATLIFF.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

92 So. 449

207 Ala. 341

FRANKLIN MOTOR CAR CO., INC., v. RATLIFF.

7 Div. 289.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 20, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; W. J. Martin, Judge.

Action by the Franklin Motor Car Company, Incorporated, against S L. Ratliff, in detinue for the recovery of an automobile. Judgment for the plaintiff in an insufficient amount, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Acts 1911, p. 449, § 6. Affirmed.

Hood &amp Murphree, of Gadsden, for appellant.

W. J Boykin, of Gadsden, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Plaintiff, the Franklin Motor Car Company, sold an automobile to defendant, reserving title to secure deferred payments on the purchase price. Defendant made default in payment, and plaintiff brought statutory detinue to recover the machine. Under authority of section 3789 of the Code defendant filed his suggestion requiring the jury to ascertain the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the machine, and also filed special pleas of recoupment 6 and 7, demurrers to which were overruled. In pursuance of the suggestion the jury found a small balance due from defendant to plaintiff, which, within 30 days, was paid to the clerk of the court for plaintiff. Plaintiff has appealed, and, as to the pleadings, assigns for error the rulings in favor of the special pleas noted above.

The pleas were sufficient. As to 6: An automobile is a machine. In the absence of an express agreement as to warranty, the law implied a warranty on the part of the seller that the subject of this sale should be reasonably adapted to the uses for which it was made and sold-uses universally understood; that it should be a reasonably good automobile, its class and price considered; and, if it fell below this standard, there was a breach of this implied warranty. Snow v. Schomacker Mfg. Co., 69 Ala. 111, 44 Am. Rep. 509; 11 Mich. Dig. p. 708, §§ 217(1), (2).

This plea, alleging that various vital parts of the automobile (named in the plea) had been badly damaged between the time of the contract of sale and delivery to defendant, rendering the car of little value, to the damage of defendant, etc., stated, as for any ground of demurrer assigned, a good cause of recoupment. Plea 7 alleged an express warranty that the automobile was free from defects in material and workmanship, and that vital parts thereof were not free from defects and workmanship in this: The axle was defective, the differential and the clutch were defective, etc., to defendant's damage, etc., and these averments sufficiently described the defects in the machine.

Plaintiff's evidence went to show an agreement in writing between the parties, "comprising the entire agreement pertaining to this purchase," and containing the stipulation that-

"The only guaranty under which this car is sold is the regular standard automobile manufacturer's guaranty."

It appeared that the manufacturer's warranty was as follows:

"We warrant each new motor vehicle manufactured by us to be free from defects in

...