J.I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Sylvester

• Court: Colorado Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HURLBUT, J.
• Citation: J.I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. v. Sylvester, 122 P. 61, 21 Colo.App. 461 (Colo. App. 1912)
• Decision Date: 11 March 1912
• Parties: J.I. CASE THRESHING MACH. CO. v. SYLVESTER et al.

122 P. 61

21 Colo.App. 461

J.I. CASE THRESHING MACH. CO. v. SYLVESTER et al.

Court of Appeals of Colorado

March 11, 1912

Appeal from District Court, Rio Grande County; Charles C. Holbrook Judge.

Action by the J.I. Case Threshing Machine Company against Osborne W Sylvester and another. From a judgment for defendants plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Cary Upham & Black and Ira J. Bloomfield, for appellant.

C.M. Corlett, for appellees.

HURLBUT J.

Action by appellant (plaintiff below) against appellees (defendants below) to recover a judgment upon two promissory notes, maturing at different dates. Separate action was brought upon each note as it matured. At the trial the actions were consolidated by order of court. The notes were two of a series of four given by defendants to plaintiff as the purchase price of a certain traction engine sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendants. The engine was purchased by defendants under a written contract signed and delivered by them, which contract contained certain written warranties concerning the durability, quality of material, and capacity for work, of the engine purchased. The answer admitted that defendants signed and delivered the two notes in issue, but alleged that they were given without consideration, and were fraudulent and void; that plaintiff made certain representations to defendants concerning the durability, capacity, and suitableness of the engine in question; that the engine failed to comply with the representations, was weak, defective, poorly constructed, and worthless for the purpose of plowing and cultivating their land. The replication denied all the allegations contained in the answer except admissions.

At the trial considerable testimony was admitted in evidence, over the objection of plaintiff, as to representations made by employés and agents of plaintiff concerning the construction durability, capacity, and efficiency of the engine for plowing purposes; all such representations having been made prior to the purchase of the engine and signing of the said contract. The admission of such testimony was error and clearly prejudicial to the rights of plaintiff. Many of such representations alleged to have been made by plaintiff's agents and representatives made extravagant claims and guaranties concerning the engine and its capacity, which were not contemplated by the written warranties. At the trial, under the court's ruling, defendants...