Hitz v. Warner , 6,828.
| Docket Nº | No. 6,828. |
| Citation | 47 Ind.App. 612, 93 N.E. 1005 |
| Case Date | February 14, 1911 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
HITZ et al.
v.
WARNER et al.1
No. 6,828.
Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.
Feb. 14, 1911.
Appeal from Superior Court, Madison County; Cassius M. Greenlee, Judge.
Action by Samuel Warner and others against George Hitz and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
[93 N.E. 1006]
Lovett & Slaymaker, for appellants. Bagot & Bagot and Luther F. Pence, for appellees.
FELT, J.
Suit for damages for an alleged breach of a warranty in the sale of personal property resulting in judgment in favor of appellees for $219, from which this appeal is taken. The errors relied upon are: (1) The overruling of a demurrer to each paragraph of complaint. (2) Insufficiency of the complaint upon the facts alleged. (3) Insufficiency of the substituted complaint upon the facts alleged. (4) The overruling of appellants' motion for a new trial. The original complaint was in two paragraphs and was lost after the ruling upon the demurrer, and upon order of the court a substituted complaint was filed, but in one paragraph.
The material averments of the substituted complaint, for the purposes of this appeal, are: That on or about October 2, 1906, the appellants, by one of their agents, offered to sell to the appellees a car load of potatoes, consisting of about 600 bushels, at 50 cents per bushel, and that appellants warranted said potatoes to be of good quality, good keepers, and that they would keep in the appellees' cellar throughout the winter next following the sale; that in consideration of said warranty appellees agreed to accept the potatoes and pay therefor, upon their delivery to them, at the town of Summitville. That on or about the 8th day of October, 1906, appellees received said car of potatoes, consisting of 565 bushels, and relying upon said warranty, accepted and paid for the same; that said potatoes were not of good quality, were not good keepers, and did not keep in appellees' cellar and storerooms, but were immature and green potatoes; that appellees relied upon said warranty, and, believing the potatoes to be of the kind and quality sold to them as aforesaid, placed them in their cellar, and within four weeks thereafter the same decayed and became absolutely worthless, and appellees were compelled to remove the same from their cellar. That the appellees were not experienced in judging the keeping qualities of potatoes, and the defects which caused said potatoes to rot were not such as were observable by a person of ordinary intelligence, without experience in handling potatoes. That they paid therefor the sum of $282.37, and performed all the conditions of said contract of purchase to be by them performed. That if said potatoes had been of the kind and quality warranted, they would have been of the value of the purchase price aforesaid. That on account of the defects aforesaid they were of no value whatever, and said warranty was thereby broken, and the plaintiffs damaged in the sum of $300.
The substituted complaint for all purposes of the case stands as the original complaint, and in the absence of the original complaint the ruling upon the demurrer will be determined upon the allegations of the substituted complaint. The substituted complaint shows a parol contract for the sale of potatoes accompanied by an express warranty as to their keeping qualities, the delivery and acceptance of the potatoes, payment therefor
[93 N.E. 1007]
by the purchaser and a breach of the warranty resulting in damages. These averments, we think are clearly sufficient to state a cause of action. Lincoln v. Ragsdale, 7 Ind. App. 354, 31 N. E. 581;Shirk et al. v. Mitchell et al., 137 Ind. 185-189, 36 N. E. 850;Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Seichting, 126 Ind. 137, 25 N. E. 894;Jones v. Quick, 28 Ind. 125;Smith et al. v. Borden, 160 Ind. 223-228, 66 N. E. 681. The claim that the case is within the statute of frauds cannot be sustained for the reason that it is well settled that where personal property is sold by parol contract and the agreement is thereafter executed by the delivery and acceptance of the property, and payment therefor, the case, though it may have been originally within the statute of frauds, is, by the execution of the contract, taken out of its operation. Our statutes (section 7469, Burns' Ann. St. 1908) provide that receipt of part of the property is sufficient to make the contract binding without a written agreement. The facts averred in this complaint show not only the receipt of “part of such property,” but all of the property purchased. The statute of frauds, therefore, has no application to the case made by the complaint before us. Fletcher et al. v. Southern, 41 Ind. App. 550, 84 N. E. 526;Barkalow v. Pfeiffer, 38 Ind. 214. This disposes of all the errors assigned, except the ruling upon the motion for a new trial.
Specifications 1 to 4, inclusive, of the motion for a new trial assert that the damages are excessive, that the decision of the court is not sustained by the evidence, and that it is contrary to law. The other specifications of the motion, to and including the forty-eighth, complain of the rulings of the trial court in the admission and exclusion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandalia Coal Co. v. Butler, No. 9472.
...fact be shown by appellant in his brief in order to have such question considered by this court. Hitz v. Warner (1910) 47 Ind. App. 619, 93 N. E. 1005;Harmon v. Pohle (1910) 46 Ind. App. 369, 92 N. E. 110. Such omission leaves nothing for our determination in that regard. [12] Appellant con......
-
Davenport Ladder Co. v. Edward Hines Lumber Co., No. 8845.
...v. Lubrite Refining Co., 120 Kan. 137, 242 P. 126; Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Stanley, 126 S. C. 501, 120 S. E. 234; Hitz v. Warner, 47 Ind. App. 612, 93 N. E. 1005; Dominion Trading Co. v. Kronman & Co. (Sup.) 168 N. Y. S. 693; Alderman Bros. Co. v. Westinghouse Co., 92 Conn. 419, 103 A. 2......
-
German Fire Ins. Co. v. Zonker, No. 8404.
...709;Lake Erie, etc., Ry. Co. v. Shelley, 163 Ind. 36-47;1Vandalia Ry. Co. v. Keys, 46 Ind. App. 353, 369, 91 N. E. 173;Hitz v. Warner, 47 Ind. App. 612, 619, 93 N. E. 1005. [8] In “Points and Authorities” appellant states legal propositions and cites authority relating in a general way to m......
-
Thompson Farms, Inc. v. Corno Feed Products, Division of Nat. Oats Co., Inc., No. 1-1075A191
...g., Theis v. Heuer (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 300; Carmichael v. Lavengood (1942), 112 Ind.App. 144, 44 N.E.2d 177; Hitz v. Warner (1911), 47 Ind.App. 612, 93 N.E. 1005) and it accords with the broad definition of express warranty found in the Uniform Commercial Code, IC 1971, "(1) Express wa......
-
Hitz v. Warner, 6,828
...93 N.E. 1005 47 Ind.App. 612 HITZ ET AL. v. WARNER ET AL No. 6,828Court of Appeals of IndianaFebruary 14, Rehearing denied May 16, 1911. From Superior Court of Madison County; Cassius M. Greenlee, Judge. Action by Samuel Warner and another against George Hitz and others. From a judgment for......
-
Indep. Torpedo Co. v. J.E. Clark Oil Co., 7,146.
...328, 333, 11 N. E. 593, 59 Am. Rep. 211;Seavey v. Shurick, 110 Ind. 494, 497, 11 N. E. 597;Cole v. Leach, 94 N. E. 577;Hitz v. Warner, 93 N. E. 1005. [6] Under the issues and facts of this case, the trial court properly excluded the evidence of a custom or usage. The fact that one of the pa......
-
Independent Torpedo Co. v. J. E. Clark Oil Co., 7,146
...Seavey v. Shurick (1887), 110 Ind. 494, 497, 11 N.E. 597; Cole v. Leach (1911), 47 Ind.App. 341, 94 N.E. 577; Hitz v. Warner (1911), 47 Ind.App. 612, 93 N.E. 1005. Under the issues and facts of this case, the trial court properly excluded the evidence of a custom or usage. The fact that one......
-
Swing v. Marion Pulp Co., 6,909.
...judgment of the court below is contrary to law and against the evidence adduced in the case. From the evidence, in addition to the facts [93 N.E. 1005]admitted in the pleadings, it appears that the property said to have been insured was situated in Grant county, Ind.; that an agent of said ......