International Harvester Company of America v. Alger

• Decision Date: 16 March 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

152 N.W. 121

30 N.D. 71

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY OF AMERICA v. FRED L. ALGER

Supreme Court of North Dakota

March 16, 1915

Appeal from the District Court of Mountrail County, Fisk, J.

Affirmed.

George R. Robbins and George A. Bangs, for appellant.

The meaning of a contract is not evident when, if looking at the subject-matter, it is so unreasonable as to appear unlikely that the parties so intended. To enable one to read the contract in the light of the subject-matter and the effects and consequences, evidence of facts and circumstances, not mere conversations, leading up to and concurrent with the making of the contract, is often necessary. Oral testimony was admissible to show the intention of all parties. Kleuter v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 143 Wis. 347 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 383, 128 N.W. 43; 2 Jones, Ev. § 460; 2 Parsons, Contr. 500; 4 Wigmore, Ev. § 2465; 17 Cyc. 662 668, 682, 685; 35 Cyc. 120; Barnett v. Hagan, 18 Idaho 104, 108 P. 743; Miller v. Wiggins, 227 Pa 564, 76 A. 711, 19 Ann. Cas. 942; San Miguel Consol. Gold Min. Co. v. Stubbs, 38 Colo. 359, 90 P. 842; Bache v. Coppes, Z. & M. Co., 35 Ind.App. 351, 111 Am. St. Rep. 171, 74 N.E. 41; Miller v. Tanners' Supply Co., 150 Mich. 292, 114 N.W. 61; Viernow v. Carthage, 139 Mo.App. 276, 123 S.W. 67; Buster Brown Co. v. North-Mehornay Furniture Co., 140 Mo.App. 707, 126 S.W. 988; Meyer v. Everett Pulp & Paper Co., 113 C.C.A. 643, 193 F. 857; Willis v. Jarrett Constr. Co., 152 N.C. 100, 67 S.E. 265; Dean v. Gibson, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 508, 79 S.W. 363; O'Neil v. Ogden Aerie, F. O. E. 32 Utah 162, 89 P. 464; Pine Beach Invest. Corp. v. Columbia Amusement Co., 106 Va. 810, 56 S.E. 822; Parks v. Elmore, 59 Wash. 584, 110 P. 381; New England Dressed Meat & Wool Co. v. Standard Worsted Co., 165 Mass. 328, 52 Am. St. Rep. 516, 43 N.E. 112; Ross v. Frank, 13 Cal.App. 88, 108 P. 1025; McKeefrey v. Dimmick, 166 F. 370; 9 Cyc. 578; 2 Elliott, Contr. § 1531; Fearnley v. Fearnley, 44 Colo. 417, 98 P. 821; MacKinnon Boiler & Mach. Co. v. Central Michigan Land Co., 156 Mich. 11, 120 N.W. 26.

The order and contract are clearly ambiguous and are open to several different meanings. They are too indefinite. Webster's New Int. Dict. p. 1525; 38 Cyc. 670; Toedtemeier v. Clackamas County, 34 Ore. 66, 54 P. 954.

The vendor must deliver the subject-matter of the sale. The thing that both parties intended. His contract is not satisfied with less. He must comply with his full contract. Mechem, Sales, §§ 1154, 1210, 1333, 1334; Northwestern Cordage Co. v. Rice, 5 N.D. 432, 57 Am. St. Rep. 563, 67 N.W. 298; Columbian Iron Works & D. D. Co. v. Douglas, 84 Md. 44, 33 L.R.A. 103, 57 Am. St. Rep. 362, 34 A. 1118; King v. Rochester, 67 N.H. 310, 39 A. 256; National Water Purifying Co. v. New Orleans Waterworks Co., 48 La.Ann. 773, 19 So. 865; Webster-Gruber Marble Co. v. Dryden, 90 Iowa 37, 48 Am. St. Rep. 417, 57 N.W. 637; Huson Ice & Mach. Works v. Bland, 167 Ala. 391, 52 So. 445; Standard Oil Co. v. Weeks, 167 Ala. 403, 52 So. 443; Pruitt Commission Co. v. Dispatch Co. Tex. Civ. App. , 129 S.W. 1150; Birdsall v. Coon, 157 Mo.App. 439, 139 S.W. 243; Mette & K. Distilling Co. v. Lowrey, 39 Mont. 124, 101 P. 966; Springfield Shingle Co. v. Edgecomb Mill Co., 52 Wash. 620, 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 258, 101 P. 233; Morse v. Moore, 83 Me. 473, 13 L.R.A. 224, 23 Am. St. Rep. 783, 22 A. 362; Pope v. Allis, 115 U.S. 363, 29 L. ed. 393, 6 S.Ct. 69; Avil Pub. Co. v. Bradford, 121 Mo.App. 577, 97 S.W. 238; Mine Supply Co. v. Columbia Min. Co., 48 Ore. 391, 86 P. 789.

If the defendant had voluntarily retained and accepted the substituted engine, his rights would be controlled by the contract as construed by the courts of this state, and he could recoup or counterclaim damages as allowed thereby. 35 Cyc. 431; 2 Mechem, Sales, 1392, 1393; Northwestern Cordage Co. v. Rice, 5 N.D. 432, 57 Am. St. Rep. 563, 67 N.W. 298; Watson v. Bigelow Co., 77 Conn. 124, 58 A. 741; Morse v. Moore, 83 Me. 473, 13 L.R.A. 224, 23 Am. St. Rep. 783, 22 A. 362; Springfield Shingle Co. v. Edgecomb Mill Co., 52 Wash. 620, 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 258, 101 P. 233; Mine Supply Co. v. Columbia Min. Co., 48 Ore. 391, 86 P. 789; 35 Cyc. 430.

Scott Rex, for respondents.

The rule that parol evidence is inadmissible to alter or vary a written contract has uniformly been held and followed by this court in this class of cases. Plano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N.D. 165, 54 N.W. 924; Reeves v. Corrigan, 3 N.D. 415, 57 N.W. 80; Houghton Implement Co. v. Doughty, 14 N.D. 331, 104 N.W. 516; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N.D. 516, 101 N.W. 903.

This case does not come within any exception to such rule. The parties here deliberately put their contract into a writing which is complete in itself, and is in such language and plain terms as import a complete legal obligation, without ambiguity or uncertainty. Putnam v. Prouty, 24 N.D. 517, 140 N.W. 93; Diebold Safe & Lock Co. v. Huston, 55 Kan. 104, 28 L.R.A. 53, 39 P. 1035; Seitz v. Brewer's Refrigerating Mach. Co., 141 U.S. 510, 35 L. ed. 837, 12 S.Ct. 46; Richardson v. Carlis, 26 S.D. 202, 128 N.W. 168, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 47; Kleeb v. Bard, 7 Wash. 41, 34 P. 138; Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Mahon, 13 N.D. 516, 101 N.W. 903.

Where, in a contract of sale, the description of the chattel is followed by express words of warranty, the warranty does not extend to the descriptive recital. Ehrsam v. Brown, 76 Kan. 206, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 877, 91 P. 179; Lombard Water-Wheel Governor Co. v. Great Northern Paper Co., 101 Me. 114, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 180, 63 A. 555; Wheaton Roller-Mill Co. v. John T. Noye Mfg. Co., 66 Minn. 156, 68 N.W. 854; Holt v. Sims, 94 Minn. 157, 102 N.W. 386; Fuchs & L. Mfg. Co. v. R. J. Kittredge & Co., 242 Ill. 88, 89 N.E. 723; Buckstaff v. Russell, 25 C.C.A. 129, 49 U.S. App. 253, 79 F. 611; Lower v. Hickman, 80 Ark. 505, 97 S.W. 681; Reeves & Co. v. Byers, 155 Ind. 535, 58 N.E. 713; 35 Cyc. 381.

Stipulations in contracts such as above quoted for notice to the seller of defects are quite uniformly held to be valid and enforceable. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Vennum, 4 Dakota 92, 23 N.W. 563; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Root, 3 N.D. 165, 54 N.W. 924; Fahey v. Esterley Mach. Co., 3 N.D. 220, 44 Am. St. Rep. 554, 55 N.W. 580; Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. v. Lincoln, 4 N.D. 410, 61 N.W. 145; J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Ebbighausen, 11 N.D. 466, 92 N.W. 826; Hanson v. Lindstrom, 15 N.D. 584, 108 N.W. 798; Aultman & T. Co. v. Gunderson, 6 S.D. 226, 55 Am. St. Rep. 837, 60 N.W. 859; Larson v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., 92 Minn. 62, 99 N.W. 623; Heagney v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co., 4 Neb. (Unof.) 745, 96 N.W. 175; Nichols & S. Co. v. Dallier, 23 N.D. 532, 137 N.W. 570; Kingman v. Watson, 97 Wis. 596, 73 N.W. 438; Fox v. Wilkinson, 133 Wis. 337, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1107, 113 N.W. 669; Murphy v. Russell, 8 Idaho, 133, 67 P. 421; Palmer v. Banfield, 86 Wis. 441, 56 N.W. 1090; Nichols v. Knowles, 31 Minn. 489, 18 N.W. 413; Minnesota Thresher Mfg. Co. v. Lincoln, 4 N.D. 410, 61 N.W. 145.

One cannot, except in the case of a breach of warranty, retain and use the property as his own and still recoup damages. The respondent has complied with the contract in every particular, and it is not necessary to speculate on what the rights of the parties might have been if it had not done so. American Theatre Co. v. Siegel, C. & Co., 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1167, and case note, 221 Ill. 145, 77 N.E. 588; Fox v. Wilkinson, 133 Wis. 337, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1107, 113 N.W. 669; Springfield Shingle Co. v. Edgecomb Mill Co., 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 258, note VII-b, pp. 280 et seq; Brown v. Foster, 108 N.Y. 387, 15 N.E. 608; Zipp Mfg. Co. v. Pastorino, 120 Wis. 176, 97 N.W. 904; Cream City Glass Co. v. Friedlander, 84 Wis. 53, 21 L.R.A. 135, 36 Am. St. Rep. 895, 54 N.W. 28; Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Mach. Co. v. Calvert, 89 Wis. 640, 62 N.W. 532; Springfield Engine Stop Co. v. Sharp, 184 Mass. 266, 68 N.E. 224; DeKalb Implement Works v. White, 59 Ill.App. 171; Noel v. Kauffman Buggy Co., 32 Ky. L. Rep. 576, 106 S.W. 237; Chambers v. Lancaster, 160 N.Y. 342, 54 N.E. 707; Fred W. Wolf Co. v. Monarch Refrigerating Co., 252 Ill. 491, 50 L.R.A. (N.S.) 808, 96 N.E. 1063; Wilmerding v. Strouse, 112 N.Y.S. 1091.

Appellant's right to claim damages herein is necessarily governed by the terms of the contract. His affirmative claims for damages fall with his defense. Avery Planter Co. v. Peck, 86 Minn. 40, 89 N.W. 1123; Rowell v. Oleson, 32 Minn. 288, 20 N.W. 227.

OPINION

BURKE, J.

This is a trial de novo. In January 20, 1910, defendant gave to plaintiff a written order for a 20-horse power International Type C, tractor gasolene engine; on March 29, 1910, an engine was delivered for which he executed and delivered to the plaintiff two notes, a chattel and real estate mortgage securing the same, for the sum of $ 1,550, the first note falling due October 1, 1910. Defendant retained said engine and used it until October, 1910, when he notified the plaintiff that he would not accept the same. The written order for the engine mentioned above contained the following provision: "The undersigned hereby acknowledges having received a true copy of this order, agreement, and warranty, as indorsed on the back hereof." The warranty reads as follows: "The International Harvester Company of America (incorporated) warrants the within described engine to do good work, to be well made, of good material, and durable if used with proper care. If upon one day's trial, with proper care, the engine fails to work well, the purchaser shall immediately give written notice to the International Harvester Company of America, at Chicago, Illinois, and to the agent from whom it was purchased, stating wherein the engine fails; shall allow a reasonable time for a competent man to be sent...