J. I. Case Threshing-Mach. Co. v. McKinnon

• Decision Date: 20 December 1900
• Parties: J. I. CASE THRESHING-MACH. CO. v. McKINNON.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

82 Minn. 75

84 N.W. 646

J. I. CASE THRESHING-MACH. CO.

v.McKINNON.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 20, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Polk county; William Watts, Judge.

Action by the J. I. Case Threshing-Machine Company against John R. McKinnon. Verdict for defendant. From an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

1. No particular form of words is necessary to constitute a verbal warranty of personal property by the vendor on its sale, providing there be an assurance of a material fact affecting its quality upon which the purchaser could and did rely.

2. It is not essential that the purchaser of personal property on the trial testify that he relied upon the assurance by the vendor which constitutes the warranty, if the circumstances are such as to justify the inference that he did so.

3. A general agent who has power to sell property for his principal, in the absence of express restrictions upon his right to warrant the same and notice of such restrictions to the purchaser may be presumed to have authority to do so.

4. Evidence in this case considered, and held sufficient to support the verdict. H. Steenerson, for appellant.

A. A. Miller, for respondent.

LOVELY, J.

Defendant was the local sales agent for plaintiff's threshing outfits at Crookston. At the close of the year's agency he was indebted to plaintiff for extras and supplies, but asserted the right to offset on the settlement damages sustained by him for an alleged breach of warranty in the sale of a traction engine which he claims to have purchased of his principal. At the trial, defendant had a verdict on his counterclaim for $145. Upon a settled case plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, from which order the whole evidence is brought here on appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the whole record, and find that the only issue raised by this appeal involves the sufficiency of the evidence to fairly support the verdict. It appears from the evidence that defendant, as local agent of the plaintiff, had received an order from third parties (William, Fred, and W. A. Reitmier) for an engine and separator of a certain grade and character, which order was declined by the plaintiff, who refused to sell the same to the Reitmiers upon the ground that it was not satisfied of their responsibility. Defendant then went to Grand Forks, and had an interview with the general agent of the plaintiff at that place, and urged him to accept the order for the machine, stating that he was perfectly satisfied of the responsibility of the Reitmiers, and would be willing himself to sell the machine to them. According to defendant's testimony, the general agent (Cleary) then offered to sell the machine to defendant, to which defendant agreed, and then inquired of the general agent if the engine had power sufficient to run the separator, when Cleary assured him that it had ample power. Defendant claims that upon this assurance he concluded the sale, and purchased the outfit himself, and that it was afterwards shipped to him; that he sold it to the Reitmiers, and paid plaintiff for it, but that it turned out that the engine was not capable of running the separator; that it lacked steaming capacity for that purpose, and in that respect there was a failure of the warranty made to him through Cleary, which diminished the value of the engine to the extent of $410. Cleary, on the trial, denied that the sale was made to defendant, or that he made any assurance, in the nature of a warranty or otherwise, as to the capacity of the engine. In this respect there was a...