Hale v. Van Buren, Heck & Marvin Co.
Decision Date | 13 May 1909 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 60 |
Citation | 103 P. 1026,24 Okla. 13,1909 OK 135 |
Parties | HALE et al. v. VAN BUREN, HECK & MARVIN CO. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶1 PRINCIPAL AND AGENT--Sales--Machinery--Warranty--Breach--Notice--Authority of Agent--Question for Jury. The contract provided that the ditcher was to be constructed and warranted in compliance with letter of August 27th to S., and letter of September 7th to H., and also in a subsequent clause therein it was provided that S., a mechanical expert, was sent by the V. B., H. & M. Company under instructions from the home office to install said machine. As to said machine he was authorized to make settlements, including the making of allowances or deductions for counterclaims on account of all the fixtures not being sent, to do the mechanical work, and receive money under said contract, receive notices, or any notice of defect or breakage in the machine whilst he was present installing or operating the same, and, if on examination he discovered any defects, he was to repair or make the same right. After he had left the place where the said machine was located, he had no authority from the V. B., H. & M. Company to receive any notice from the vendee as to any defects in the machinery. After he had set up or installed said machine, within four or five days after, he left Lawton, the place where the machine was installed. On being notified by the vendee by letter that the machine was not working as per contract, he advised said vendee that he was working under the instructions of V. B., H. & M. Company, and afterwards, under instructions from said company, he returned to Lawton and re-examined and again repaired said machine. Held, that the said S. was such an agent of the V. B., H. & M. Company that notice to him under the circumstances was sufficient to have entitled the vendee to have submitted to the jury evidence as to whether or not the machine complied with the conditions of warranty.
W. C. Stevens, B. M. Parmenter, and C. M. Myers, for plaintiffs in error, citing: Baker v. Nichols Shepard Co. (Okla.) 65 P. 102; Aultman-Taylor Co. v. Frazier (Kan.) 47 P. 157; Harrison et al. v. Russell & Co. (Idaho) 87 P. 784; Avery Planter Co. v. Risg, 56 Ill. App. 599; Huber Mfg. Co. v. Busey, 16 Ind. App. 410; Briggs v. M. Rumely Co., 96 Iowa, 202; Lindsey v. Frische (Wis.) 109 N.W. 945.
John L. Priddy, J. L. Hamon, and Charles Mitschrich, for defendant in error, citing: Aultman-Taylor Co. v. Gunderson (S. Dak.) 55 Am. St. Rep. 837; Scott v. Geiser Mfg. Co., (Kan.) 80 P. 955; E. T. Burrows Co. v. Rapid Safety Filter Co., 97 N.Y. Supp. 1048; Main Co. v. Griffin Bynum Co. (N. C.) 53 S.E. 727; Northern, etc., Co. v. Coal Co., 116 Wis. 130; Davis v. Case T. M. Co. (Ky.) 80 S.W. 1145; Murphy v. Russell (Idaho) 67 P. 421; Baird Bros. v. Walter Pratt & Co. (Ind. T.) 89 S.W. 648; Furneaux v. Esterly (Kan.) 13 P. 824; Case T. M. Co. v. Ebbinghausen, 11 N. D. 466; Massillon E. & T. Co. v. Schirmer (Iowa) 93 N.W. 599; Pa. I. W. Co. v. Hygian, etc., Co. (Mass.) 70 N.E. 427; Shearer v. Garr, etc., Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 90 S.W. 684; Acme Harvester Co. v. Erne (Kan.) 66 P. 1004; International Harvester Co. v. Dillon (Ga.) 55 S.E. 1034.
Error from District Court, Comanche County; F. E. Gillette, Judge.
Action by the Van Buren, Heck & Marvin Company against J. R. Hale and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Reversed, with instructions.
On the 23 day of August, 1905, the defendant in error, as plaintiff, began its action in the district court of Comanche county, territory of Oklahoma, against the plaintiffs in error, John R. Hale and George W. Broe, as defendants, declaring in its petition on three certain promissory notes, each in the sum of $ 1,583.60, dated November 19, 1904, and due, respectively, three, six, and nine months after date, payable to the order of the defendant in error at the City National Bank of Lawton, Okla. T.; it being averred that said notes were given as a part of the purchase price of one Buckeye ditcher. On the 20th day of September, 1905, the defendant John R. Hale filed his separate answer, admitting the execution and delivery of the notes declared on solely and only for the purchase by defendant of one certain Buckeye traction ditcher, 54 inch by 12 inch, equipped with a 28-inch wheel and complete with the usual extras; that at the time of the execution and delivery of said notes a certain written contract of warranty, dated September 19, 1904, was made and delivered by the plaintiff to said defendant, by the terms of which it was agreed that plaintiff should and did warrant said machine in accordance with a letter of said plaintiff to one J. O. Severns, dated August 27, 1904, which is as follows:
traction wheels with heavy steel gear rims riveted to the inside of the tires, tires to be 3/4" thick, 24" wide, boiler to be the Scotch-Marine type 60 "x104", engines to be duplex slide valve 8 1/4
And also a letter to J. R. Hale, dated September 7, 1904, as follows:
"Findlay, Ohio, Sept. 7, 1904. Mr. Jno. R. Hale, No. 302 C. Ave., Lawton, Okla. Ter. Dear Sir: Further in regard to your favor of the 30th ult., the writer was out of the city at the time your letter answered. On his return last evening the correspondence was gone over and we find that you were not given the information asked for. You want a 12' machine. We have one which has put in about a thousand feet of extremely hard material. In fact there was no earth at all. It was all shale, most of which could be picked, interspersed, however, with flinty ledges which were impossible to excavate except by blasting, that is, with the ordinary method. The machine went thru it. The machine was worn somewhat. We are replacing all worn parts and will have the machine in readiness for shipment in about two weeks time. Equipment as follows: Boiler is horizontal Scotch-Marine type 66" in diameter 9' 7" in depth, furnace 34" in diameter, shell 3/8," heads 1/2," furnace 1/2," tubes 68-3," length 96," boiler is equipped with a dry pipe instead of dome to allow for the stack being topped backward and passing under trolley wires. Engine is duplex, 8 3/4...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Exchange v. Coon
...of the insured. Van Cleave v. Union Casualty & Surety Co., 82 Mo. App. 668, and authorities therein cited. In Hale et al. v. Van Buren, Heck & Marvin Co., 24 Okla. 13, 103 P. 1026, a similar question as to the forfeiture of a contract was considered by this court:"The contract provided that......
-
Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. v. Ball
... ... Baker v. Nichols & Shepard Company, 10 Okla. 685, 65 P. 100; Hale v. Van Buren, Heck & Marvin Co., 24 Okla. 13, 103 P. 1026. 5 Plaintiff in ... ...
-
Reitan v. Wilkinson
...rescinding the contract. The acts and conduct on the part of defendants operated as a waiver or written notice. Hale v. Van Buren, Heck & Marvin Co., 24 Okla. 13, 103 P. 1026; Emerson Brantingham Implement Co. v. Ritter, 69 Okla. 95, 170 P. 482; Hart-Parr Co. v. Duncan, 75 Okla. 59, 181 P. ......
-
Cont'l Gin Co. v. Sullivan
...plaintiff sent a man to try to remedy the defect in the machinery, which under the holding of this court in Hale et al. v. Van Buren, Heck & Marvin Co., 24 Okla. 13, 103 P. 1026, and Port Huron Engine & Threshing Co. v. Ball, 30 Okla. 11, 118 P. 393, waived the notice specified in the contr......