Neiman v. Channellene Oil & Manufacturing Company
| Decision Date | 22 July 1910 |
| Docket Number | 16,700 - (185) |
| Citation | 127 N.W. 394,112 Minn. 11 |
| Parties | JACOB NEIMAN v. CHANNELLENE OIL & MANUFACTURING COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $5,000 damages to plaintiff's good name and reputation as a grocer, and in his business, because of the alleged manufacture and sale to him of five gallons of cooking oil which he claimed to be impure and poisonous. The answer admitted that plaintiff was engaged in a small way in the grocery business in the city of Minneapolis; but denied all other allegations of the complaint, and alleged that any damage to plaintiff's business was the result of his own negligence and carelessness and violation of law and was not caused by appellant. The case was tried before Holt, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $200. From an order denying its motion for judgment or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Sale of adulterated cooking oil.
The sale of adulterated or poisonous cooking oil by a wholesale dealer is prima facie evidence of negligence in failing to ascertain its true character, although the package was properly labeled as cotton seed oil.
Sale of adulterated cooking oil -- liability for retailer's loss of business.
A manufacturer, or dealer, who sells adulterated or poisonous cooking oil to a retail merchant, is liable to the vendee for his consequent loss of business in selling the oil to his customers.
Sale of adulterated cooking oil -- charge to jury.
The court did not err in instructing the jury as to the degree of care required of the merchant to ascertain the quality of the oil before selling it to his customers, and the verdict is sustained by the evidence.
Thos C. Daggett, for appellant.
Geo. Harold Smith and Francis B. Hart, for respondent.
Respondent conducted a small retail grocery and notion store in Minneapolis. Appellant was a wholesaler, or jobber, and this action was brought to recover damages alleged to have ensued to respondent's business by reason of the purchase by him from appellant of unwholesome and poisonous cooking oil, which was innocently sold by him to his customers. Respondent recovered a verdict of $200.
Appellant did not manufacture the oil, but claimed to have purchased it in Kansas City. Appellant's manager, a witness at the trial, testified that he made no examination of the oil to see that it was proper to sell for cooking purposes, but sold it as cotton seed oil on the strength of the label. The oil contained forty per cent. petroleum, and respondent sold it to several of his customers, who testified that they used it for cooking purposes, and that it made them sick, for which reason they immediately stopped trading with respondent.
During the course...
To continue reading
Request your trial