J. A. Tobin Const. Co. v. Davis
Decision Date | 18 February 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 18258.,18258. |
Parties | J. A. TOBIN CONST. CO. v. DAVIS et al. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by the J. A. Tobin Construction Company against A. A. Davis and another, doing business under the name of A. A. Davis and Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Reversed and cause remanded.
Ryland, Stinson, Mag & Thomas and Robert E. Rosenwald, all of Kansas City, for appellants.
Roy W. Crimm, of Kansas City, for respondent.
REYNOLDS, Commissioner.
This is an action by plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $2,986.10 for damages for an alleged breach of warranty made, which warranty was to the effect that certain road paving machinery and equipment were in serviceable condition for use when sold and delivered by defendants to the plaintiff.
From an adverse judgment upon trial before a jury in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,700, the defendants, after unsuccessful motions for a new trial and in arrest, prosecute this appeal.
The petition alleges that about August 15, 1929, the defendants sold to plaintiff certain road paving machinery and equipment, including 4,000 feet of concrete forms constructed of metal, one Blaux Knox weighing bins and scales, one No. 60 Caterpillar tractor, one Northwestern No. 4 crane, one center strip, one straight edge, one quadruple pump, and a large quantity of 2-inch iron pipe, and represented the same to be in serviceable condition; that, by a written agreement between plaintiff and defendants dated August 15, 1929, it was expressly provided that it was understood by all parties that such equipment, including the articles above enumerated, was to be in serviceable condition and defendants would load such equipment so purchased on railroad cars at Kinney, Tex., Newbern Tenn., and Hickman, Ky., and ship the same to plaintiff at La Cygne, Kan., where plaintiff expected and intended to use the same in the construction of a highway paving contract, of which fact plaintiff at the time advised the defendants; that, relying upon said representation and the agreement of the defendants that the said equipment was in serviceable condition, plaintiff paid for the same and received the same from the defendants at La Cygne, Kan.; that, after the delivery of the same, the plaintiff found the last above-enumerated items of said machinery and equipment were not in serviceable condition as represented and contracted for. The particulars as to each and the damage claimed by plaintiff with reference to each are set out in the petition.
It further alleges that, by reason of all of the matters complained of therein, plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $2,986.10, for which it prays judgment. It sufficiently states a cause of action for damages for the breach of warranty complained of.
The answer is a general denial.
The contract for the sale, specifying the items and prices of the property sold and embodying the alleged warranty of which a breach is complained, was reduced to writing and signed by the parties. It appears in evidence, as Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, and is as follows, omitting caption and signatures:
Further evidence in the record tends to show that the plaintiff was a paving, grading, and public works contractor, with a contract for the construction of nine miles of concrete highway at La Cygne, Kan. Having no paving outfit at the time available for this work, it made inquiries as to used paving outfits that could be bought and was advised that the defendants, contractors located at Oklahoma City, Okl., had machinery and equipment of that nature for sale. Such equipment of defendants was located at three places: Newbern, Tenn.; Hickman, Ky.; and Kinney, Tex. Plaintiff got in touch with A. A. Davis, one of the defendants, and arranged for him to meet its representatives and show them the machinery and equipment they had. J. S. O'Connor, associated with plaintiff, accompanied by E. M. Critchfield, a contractors' supply salesman, were sent to the three places where defendants' machinery and equipment were stored, where they met defendant A. A. Davis and looked the same over with him. They found the same stacked in yards near railroad sidings. None of the machinery was in operation. They asked to see it in operation; but it had been idle for some time; and, as there was no gas or oil or person present to operate it, they did not get to see it in operation. They examined the same as well as they could; and, from all appearances, it looked satisfactory and in good condition. Among other things, they saw 10,000 feet or more of metal paving forms stacked in a large pile about 8 feet high and 50 feet square in one of the storeyards. They could observe only the outer ones. O'Connor testified that they were apparently all right and that he reported to J. A. Tobin, president of the plaintiff corporation, that he thought they would be all right and in workable condition.
Critchfield stated that he had looked the machinery over and was satisfied with the appearance of the same and made a report to Tobin of the machinery he saw and told him that he thought it would be a good buy at the price at which Davis was willing to sell it. His opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial