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

Decision Date27 April 1910
Citation162 N.C. 405,67 S.E. 991
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJ. I. CASE THRESHING MACH. CO. v. McCLAMROCK et al.

1. Sales (§ 267*)—Implied Warranties.

Personal property may be sold with or without warranty, and, where there is an express stipulation that the property is not warranted, a warranty will not be implied.

TEd. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. § 761; Dec. Dig. § 267.*]

2. Sales (§ 266*)—Absence of Warranty-Right to Recover for Inferior Quality.

In the absence of warranty of the grade of goods sold, the buyer cannot recover because the goods are of inferior quality, though he could not have ascertained that the quality was inferior except by use of the goods, and though the seller knew the purpose for which they were to be used.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Sales, Cent. Dig. § 746; Dec. Dig. § 266.*]

3. Principal and Agent (§ 148*)—Liabilities as to Third Persons — Notice of Agent's Authority.

Where a machine was sold by a contract reciting in bold type that it was an order for a secondhand machine not warranted, that no person had any authority to waive, alter, or enlarge the contract, that mechanics and experts were not authorized to bind the seller by any act or statement, and that an acceptance by the buyer would be a full waiver of all claims arising from any cause, and the buyers, who could read and write, signed the order, and after operating the machine admitted in writing that it was satisfactory, they could not avoid payment of the purchase-money notes on the ground that the seller's agent had falsely told them that the machine was new and that the seller would warrant it.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Principal and Agent, Dec. Dig. § 148.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Davie County; Dong, Judge.

Action by the J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company against C. D. McClamrock and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Civil action tried on appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace, before Dong, J., and a jury at October term, 1909, of the superior court of Davie county.

The plaintiff sued on three notes, two of $40 each, and one of $33.25, executed by defendants on July 16, 1906, for the purchase price of a secondhand self-feeder for a separator. The contract of purchase was in writing, was signed by the two defendants, and contained, among other stipulations, the following: " As a condition hereof, it is fully understood and agreed that said machinery is purchased as secondhand and not warranted." The contract, in bold type, at its beginning has the following words: "J. I. Case Threshing Machine Company Secondhand Machinery Order." On its margin, in bold type, it contained the following notice: "No person has any authority to waive, alter or enlarge this contract, or make any new or substituted or different contract, representation or warranty. Mechanics and experts are not authorized to bind the company by any act, contract, or statement." Both defendants can read and write, and admitted signing the order, the notes, and the chattel mortgage. The machine came and was attached, and operated, and, after seeing it operated, the defendant admitted signing the following "satisfaction slip": "Mocksville, N. C, July 16, 1906. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., Racine, Wisconsin—Gentlemen: Your Mr. F. D. Halcomb has rendered us the desired assistance in operating the machinery recently purchased from you, and we are well pleased and satisfied with same, Self-Feeder, No. 6629. Yours truly, L. M. McClamrock. C. L. McClamrock." The defendant C. L. McClamrock, on his cross-examination as a witness, stated that he and his father signed the satisfaction slip; thathis father stated that he was satisfied; that he (witness) was satisfied; that it was working all right. The defense set up by the defendants was that they thought they were buying a new, not a secondhand, machine; that the agent of plaintiff stated, upon arrival of machine, that it was new, though they had copy of the contract order; that the machine did not work well and damaged the machine to which it was attached. This constituted the fraud relied upon by defendants to defeat recovery. At the conclusion of the evidence, his honor ruled that he would instruct the jury that upon all the evidence, if believed by them, the plaintiff was entitled to recover, and the jury thereupon answered the issue of indebtedness, the only issue submitted, in favor of plaintiff, and defendants...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Cranston v. West Coast Life Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 10 Diciembre 1912
    ... ... case. The following allegation also appears in the reply: ... "That after ... (Tex.Civ.App.) 135 S.W. 203; ... J.I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v. McClamrock, 152 ... N.C. 405, 67 S.E. 991; First ... ...
  • Crampton v. Lamonda
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • 3 Mayo 1921
    ...where there is an express stipulation that the property is not warranted, the law will not imply a warranty. Case Threshing Mac. Co. v. McClamrock, 152 N. C. 405, 67 S. E. 991; Leonard Seed Co. v. Crary Canning Co., 147 Wis. 166, 132 N. W. 902, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 79, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1077,......
  • Hopkinsville Motor Co. v. Massie
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 19 Marzo 1929
    ... ... were misrepresented. The case is simply one where, in the ... face of the written contract providing ... J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. v ... [15 S.W.2d 425] ...          McClamrock, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT