Johnson v. The Foley Milling & Elevator Co.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1920 |
| Docket Number | 21,841 |
| Citation | 179 N.W. 488,147 Minn. 34 |
| Parties | CHARLES JOHNSON v. THE FOLEY MILLING & ELEVATOR COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Benton county to recover $535 for breach of warranty in the purchase of seed. The case was tried before Roeser, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $296. From an order denying its motion for new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Sale of seed by name -- warranty.
1. Upon a sale of seed wheat by a particular name, a warranty that the seed was of the kind named arises.
Sale of seed by name -- charge to jury correct.
2. An instruction as to what will constitute a warranty that seed sold for seeding purposes is true to name, considered and held to be proper under the pleadings and proofs.
Breach of warranty -- measure of damages.
3. A purchaser of seeds under a warranty of kind, is entitled to recover for the breach of such warranty, the difference between the value of the crop raised from the seed furnished and that of a crop such as would ordinarily have been raised from the seed had it been of the kind as warranted.
Paul Ahles and R. B. Brower, for appellant.
J. D Sullivan, for respondent.
Action to recover damages upon the ground of a breach of warranty as to the kind of wheat furnished by the defendant to the plaintiff, pursuant to a contract between them, which contemplated that the wheat was to be used for seed upon plaintiff's farm. The contract was made orally, and, as claimed by the plaintiff, with a warranty on the part of the defendant that the wheat was "genuine Marquis wheat." There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $296. From an order denying its motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
The contract for the sale and purchase of the wheat was made under these circumstances: The defendant was engaged in the milling and grain business at Foley, and in the spring of 1915 procured a carload of wheat for sale to the farmers in that vicinity for seed. The plaintiff is a farmer residing near Foley.
Plaintiff contends, and there was evidence offered upon the trial to bear out such contention, that he saw in a local paper an advertisement to the effect that the defendant had Marquis seed wheat for sale; that he then sent his neighbor Benofski to defendant's place of business to procure for him 25 bushels of such wheat for seed upon his farm; that Benofski accordingly went to defendant's place and inquired of its manager, Mr. Feddema, what kind of seed wheat he had; that Feddema replied that it was genuine Marquis wheat, that he bought it for Marquis wheat and that was what he was selling it for; that Benofski then purchased some of the wheat for himself and stated to Feddema that he wanted 25 bushels for Johnson (the plaintiff); that Feddema then said: "He can have 25 bushels and you tell him he has got the genuine Marquis wheat;" that Benofski took the 25 bushels, delivered it to the plaintiff and at the same time told him what Feddema had said about the kind of wheat it was; that, relying upon such statements as to the kind of wheat, plaintiff paid the defendant $1.84 per bushel therefor and sowed the same upon his farm; that the seed proved not to be Marquis wheat, but produced a bearded variety much inferior in quality and yield than it would have produced had the seed been Marquis wheat, to his damage and loss in the sum of $535.
In its answer the defendant denies that it ever stated, represented or guaranteed to plaintiff that the grain procured by him from defendant, if any was procured, was Marquis wheat, or that the plaintiff has suffered damages by reason or on account of any act of the defendant as alleged in the complaint or otherwise.
There is testimony in the record to the effect that Marquis wheat was a beardless variety and yielded an average of 40 bushels per acre in the vicinity of Foley in 1915; that the plaintiff sowed the seed which he purchased from defendant upon 16 acres of good, new ground, with proper care and cultivation so as to raise a crop; that the crop produced therefrom was not Marquis wheat, but a bearded variety of a very inferior quality and yield.
It is urged upon this appeal by counsel for the defendant, first, that the verdict is not justified by the evidence; second, that the court erred in instructing the jury upon the question as to what constituted a warranty; and third, that the court erred in instructing the jury as to the measure of damages.
1. The doctrine that a bargain and sale of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial