Mccormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Williams

• Decision Date: 27 October 1896
• Citation: 68 N.W. 907,99 Iowa 601
• Parties: MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

99 Iowa 601

68 N.W. 907

MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACH. CO.

v.WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 27, 1896.

Appeal from district court, Humbolt county; Lot Thomas, Judge.

Plaintiff sues upon a written order, executed by the defendant, for a harvester. The order is in the usual form, and authorizes the plaintiff to ship to the defendant on or before July 1, 1894, the machine in question, fixes the terms of payment, and contains a warranty. In this order are contained the following words: “If my crops are a failure, and I do not need a machine, this order to be void.” Defendant admits signing the order, and that he refused to accept the machine, and denies all damages. In a second count he pleads the clause above set forth, and avers that his crops were a failure, and that he did not need a machine, and elected to declare the contract void. In the third count defendant pleads that the order was procured by false and fraudulent representations in relation to the character and quality of the machine; that said “false and fraudulent representation was that the machine had brass bearings in all places”; that defendant relied upon said representations, and believed them to be true, and executed the order upon the faith thereof, and would not have executed said order had he not believed in the truth of said representations; that said representations were false; that they were made by plaintiff's agent, Nichols, who took the order. In a reply plaintiff denies all of the allegations of the answer except the clause of the contract heretofore quoted, and says said provision has been waived by the act of the defendant in agreeing to take the machine. The cause was tried to the court and a jury, and a verdict returned for the defendant, upon which judgment was entered. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.Botsford, Healy & Healy, for appellant.

Prouty, Coyle & Prouty, for appellee.

KINNE, J.

1. The order for the machine in controversy contained the following provision: “If my crops are a failure, and I do not need a machine, this order to be void.” On the trial the plaintiff sought to show the condition of the defendant's crops, other than small grain. The court ruled out all testimony relating to the corn and grass crops, and confined the inquiry alone to the oat crop, that being all the small grain the defendant had. These rulings are complained of. We think they were right. The defendant was not buying a harvester to cut his grass or his corn. The palpable intent of this clause in the order was to...