McCray Refrigerator & Cold Storage Co. v. Woods
Decision Date | 20 March 1894 |
Citation | 58 N.W. 320,99 Mich. 269 |
Parties | McCRAY REFRIGERATOR & COLD-STORAGE CO. v. WOODS et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, St. Joseph county; Noah P. Loveridge Judge.
Action by the McCray Refrigerator & Cold-Storage Company against Woods & Zent to recover the contract price of a refrigerator. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
T. C Carpenter and Alfred Akey, for appellant.
Charles A. Sturges, for appellees.
Plaintiff's action is brought to recover the contract price of a patented apparatus for a refrigerator furnished to the defendant upon the following contract:
Upon the trial the defendants attempted to prove an express warranty that the apparatus would preserve fresh meats from 30 to 50 days, or for most any time desired, and that, upon repeated trials, it failed to do so.
The court was requested to charge the jury as follows, viz.: On the contrary, the court instructed the jury as follows: This instruction seems to be based upon the proposition that, inasmuch as the writing was silent upon the subject of warranty, one might be proved by parol. This was error. The true rule is that a written contract cannot be varied or added to by parol. The addition of a warranty is as objectionable as any other. Mr. Parsons, in his work on Contracts, at page 547, uses this language: "A warranty in the sale of a chattel is an essential part of the bargain, and should be stated in the bought and sold notes." In Peltier v. Collins, 3 Wend. 466, Marcy, J., remarked, in giving the opinion of the court: Again, the author says, (Pars. Cont. p. 548:) "It is clear that parol evidence of a warranty not mentioned in the writing is not admissible in a suit brought by the purchaser, for damages for breach of warranty;" citing Reed v. Wood, 9 Vt. 285. Mr. Parsons, on pages 589 and 590, again refers to the subject, saying, "And where the contract of sale is in writing, and contains no warranty, there parol evidence is not admissible to add a warranty;" saying, in a note, that . The general rule is too well understood to require the citation of authorities. But see 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 420, and note. Some Michigan cases may be supposed to support the defendants' contention. Phelps v. Whitaker, 37 Mich. 72. This was an order for a windmill, signed only by the purchaser. The court said that the paper did not constitute such a contract as would exclude evidence of the conversation when it was made. Trevidick v. Mumford, 31 Mich. 469, holds that a deed and bill of sale made by the plaintiff were not meant to contain all of the obligations of the defendant. This is familiar doctrine, the papers being mere incidents of the contract, and made to carry out some of its provisions. Pars. Cont. 613; Richards v. Fuller, 37 Mich. 162, was similar to that of Trevidick v. Mumford, while Weiden v. Woodruff, 38 Mich. 131, was identical in principle with Phelps v. Whitaker, which it followed, as also was Machine Co. v. Gaertner, 55 Mich. 453, 21 N.W. 885. Many of these cases cited in the Michigan cases referred to involve fraud and deceit, of which parol evidence may always be given. See Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. Crandall, 77 Mich. 401, 43 N.W. 875; Rumely & Co. v. Emmons, 85 Mich. 511, 48 N.W. 636; Register Co. v. Blumenthal, 85 Mich. 464, 48 N.W. 622.
In addition to the instruction given, the court further instructed the jury upon the theory that there might be an implied warranty, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis Calyx Drill Co. v. Mallory
... ... 672, 675, 677, 63 ... C.C.A. 224, 227, 229; McCray Refrigerating, etc., Co. v ... Woods, 99 Mich. 269, 58 ... ...
-
Barnett v. Hagan
... ... Co., 64 F. 55, 12 C. C. A. 34; McCray & C. S. Co. v ... Woods, 99 Mich. 269, 41 Am. St. 599, 58 ... Idaho, January 19, 1907 ... Ship to ... Cold Storage Market, Town Moscow, County Latah, State Idaho, ... ...
-
Amalgamated Sugar Co. v. Murdock
... ... 298, 40 Am. Rep. 775, 10 ... N.W. 433; McCray Refrigerator etc. Co. v. Woods, 99 Mich ... 269, 41 Am ... ...
-
Salzman v. Maldaver
...of showing an implied warranty. Detroit Shipbuilding Co. v. Comstock, 144 Mich. 516, 108 N.W. 286;McCray Refrigerator & Cold Storage Co. v. Woods, 99 Mich. 269, 58 N.W. 320,41 Am.St.Rep. 599. Section 15 of the Uniform Sales Act, 2 Comp.Laws 1929, § 9454, Stat.Ann. § 19.255, provides in part......