McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Brower
Decision Date | 26 May 1893 |
Citation | 55 N.W. 537,88 Iowa 607 |
Parties | MCCORMICK HARVESTING MACHINE COMPANY, Appellant, v. D. M. BROWER, Appellee |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Dallas District Court.--HON. J. H. APPELGATE, Judge.
ACTION against the defendant for the price of a harvester. The defense was a breach of warranty. There was a jury trial resulting in a verdict and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Kauffman & Guernsey and D. W. Woodin, for appellant.
White & Clark, for appellee.
July 3 1889, the defendant entered into the following written contract:
The plaintiff claims that the machine in all respects conformed to the requirements of the contract; that delivery of it was made thereunder; and that it was received and accepted by the defendant, and he refused to pay therefor. The defendant admits the purchase of the machine, the execution of the written contract, and that he has not paid for the machine. He avers that the machine was purchased of the plaintiff through George Armfield, its agent at Redfield, Iowa. He sets out the contract, and alleges that when the machine was delivered to him it was set up by the plaintiff by its agent, George Armfield, assisted by one Charles Armfield, an employee of George Armfield. That the latter attempted for about twelve hours to make the machine work well, but was unable to do so, and it did not work well, and said agent left the defendant, knowing that the machine did not work well. That when he left, the defendant notified him that the machine did not work well; that he would not keep it and pay for it if he or the plaintiff did not make it work properly, and requested him to notify said George Armfield, the plaintiff's agent, of these facts, and to furnish a suitable person to make the machine work properly. That he then and there asked Charles Armfield to make said machine work well. That the latter told the defendant if he would continue to use the machine it would work all right. That he refused to remain and fix the machine so it would work properly, but promised to come back in a day or two, and make the machine work well. That, as requested by the plaintiff's agent, he did retain the machine for about four days, and used every effort to make it work well, but was unable so to do. That the plaintiff, though notified in accordance with the terms of the contract, that the machine failed to work well, neglected to fix the same. That the defendant notified George Armfield, the plaintiff's agent, that the machine was defective in material and construction, and would not work well, and offered to return same, but said agent requested the defendant to retain it where it was; that he would have it boxed up and shipped to the plaintiff; and then agreed to receive the machine of the defendant on his premises. Avers that it was not well made and of good material, and durable with proper care, and that it did not work well upon one day's trial. The defendant particularly complains that the machine was of excessive draught; that it would not elevate the grain well, would not bind properly, and otherwise would and did not work well.
I. The appellant claims that the warranty was all embraced in the provision that "these machines are all warranted to be well made, of good material, and durable with proper care." This, it occurs to us, is too narrow a view of the contract. It expressly provides for returning the machine after one day's trial, if it does not "work well," and notice is given, and an opportunity afforded the plaintiff to send someone to put it in order. That the machine would "work well" was just as much a part of the warranty as that it was made of good material. Nor was it incumbent on the defendant to prove wherein it was not well made. He was not a mechanic or a manufacturer. He had a right to rely upon the contract that it "would work well," and if the defendant, in operating the machine, exercised reasonable care and skill in an honest effort to make it work properly, and if the condition of his grain and ground was such as not to prevent it from working well, and it would not do so, then there was a breach of the warranty.
II. The appellant complains of the court's refusal to give the following instruction: In the form presented, we think this instruction was properly refused. It is objectionable, for the reasons stated in division one of this opinion.
III. Did the defendant comply with the terms of the contract as to the trial of the machine, before notifying the plaintiff of its failure to work as warranted? He was...
To continue reading
Request your trial