Mair v. Williams

• Decision Date: 25 June 1912
• Citation: 136 N.W. 1086,29 S.D. 322
• Parties: MAIR et al. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

29 S.D. 322

136 N.W. 1086

MAIR et al.

v.WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

June 25, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brookings County; George H. Marquis, Judge.

Action by Thomas A. Mair and another against E. H. Williams. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted, and cause remanded.Hall, Roddle, & Purdy, for appellant.

Olaf Eidem, for respondents.

McCOY, P. J.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover a balance of $232.30 alleged to be due upon a certain account for hardware, plumbing, and heating apparatus sold to and installed for defendant. Defendant answered alleging that the said hearing apparatus was warranted by plaintiff to be of good quality and workmanship and that the same would heat the home of defendant in a good and sufficient manner; that defendant purchased said heating plaint relying upon said warranty; that said heating plant failed to comply with said warranty, and would not heat said house as warranted, whereby defendant was damaged in the sum of $375. On the trial defendant testified: That he and his wife went to plaintiffs' place of business to purchase the heating apparatus. That plaintiffs showed them a Robinson furnace and said to them: “‘You need not be afraid of the Robinson furnace. There is nothing better on the market. I guarantee it to heat your house to satisfaction. Furthermore, I guarantee you a complete job.’ I said: ‘If you do that, it is good enough for me. We will take it.’ I relied upon this guarantee entirely when I made the purchase. The Robinson furnace failed to comply with the warranty. When it was any way cold, we could not get the rooms heated over 56 to 57 degrees. There was one little room just over the furnace that we could heat sufficiently to live in when it was cold. Used nineteen tons of coal that winter trying to heat the house.” Plaintiffs endeavored for a long time all through that winter to remedy the working of the furnace. Other testimony on the part of defendant showed that he took out the said Robinson furnace and replaced the same with another new furnace costing $125 including labor, which new furnace heated his house very satisfactorily; that the Robinson heating apparatus installed by plaintiffs, if the same had been as warranted, would have been worth from $225 to $250; that said Robinson furnace as installed by plaintiffs was worthless, excepting certain pipes and registers which were used by defendant in installing the new furnace, and were of the value of $43. Plaintiffs denied that they so warranted said Robinson furnace; and there was testimony on the part of plaintiffs tending to show that said Robinson furnace as installed by plaintiffs was of the value of $97.25, including pipes, plates, coil, and labor. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs for the full amount of their claim.

In his charge to the jury the...