Lockwood Mfg. Co. v. Mason Regulator Co.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1903
• Citation: 66 N.E. 420,183 Mass. 25
• Parties: LOCKWOOD MFG. CO. v. MASON REGULATOR CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

183 Mass. 25

66 N.E. 420

LOCKWOOD MFG. CO. v. MASON REGULATOR CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

February 26, 1903

COUNSEL

Frank

H. Stewart, for plaintiff.

Lafayette G. Blair, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

The defendant agreed to build for the plaintiff two steam pumps according to specifications in writing, which gave the capacity, materials, mode of construction, and other qualities of the pumps. They were afterwards built and paid for, and this action is brought to recover damages for an alleged breach of the warranty contained in the contract. After receiving the specifications, the defendant, in a letter to the plaintiff, wrote as follows: 'We will manufacture for you two pumps to conform to the specifications which you sent us on the 15th instant, and guarantee the same to work in a satisfactory manner,' etc. The plaintiff wanted the pumps for use under a contract with the city of Boston, to be installed in the Calf Pasture pumping station; and the specifications were prepared by a representative of the city, and were a part of the specifications in a contract between the plaintiff and the city for the construction of this pumping station. By the terms of this contract with the city, the plaintiff's work was to be subject to the inspection and acceptance of a competent person to be appointed by the engineer; and one Leavitt, acting for the city in this particular, declined to accept the pumps after they had been put in position, and ordered them taken out. This part of the plaintiff's contract was not exhibited to the defendant, but there was evidence tending to show that the defendant knew that the contract had a provision of this kind. The testimony was not clear as to whether the defendant supposed that the city's right of rejection or approval was absolute, or whether he thought it must be exercised in a reasonable manner. The defendant's offer in the letter was accepted by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended at the trial 'that Mr. Leavitt's absolute and uncontrolled satisfaction and approval were the sole questions at issue,' and declined 'to go to the jury upon the questions whether or not the pumps complied with the specifications, and whether or bot Mr. Leavitt reasonably ought to have been satisfied.' The court having thereupon ordered a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff took exception to the refusal of the court to accept its construction of the contract, and to the ruling directing a verdict for the defendant.

...