Ohio Elec. Co. v. Wis.-Minn. Light & Power Co.

Citation155 N.W. 112,161 Wis. 632
PartiesOHIO ELECTRIC CO. v. WISCONSIN-MINNESOTA LIGHT & POWER CO.
Decision Date07 December 1915
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, La Crosse County; E. C. Higbee, Judge.

Action by the Ohio Electric Company against the Wisconsin-Minnesota Light & Power Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover the purchase price of two vacuum cleaners, which the plaintiff alleges it sold and delivered to defendant under a written contract. The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Illinois, and is engaged in manufacturing electric vacuum cleaners. The defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, and is the assignee of all the property of the La Crosse Gas & Electric Company, and assumed the liabilities and obligations of the La Crosse Gas & Electric Company. The president of the plaintiff company exhibited to Mr. Evans, the commercial manager of the La Crosse Gas & Electric Company, now the Wisconsin-Minnesota Light & Power Company, one of plaintiff's model H vacuum cleaners and after a demonstration of its work Evans directed that an order for two of those machines be sent to plaintiff. The following is a copy of the material part of the order:

La Crosse Gas & Electric Co.

La Crosse Wis., April 20, 1914.

Ohio Electric Co., 210 N. La Salle St., Chicago Ill.: Please enter our order for the following:

+----------------------------------------+
                ¦Quantity.¦Description.           ¦Price.¦
                +---------+-----------------------+------¦
                ¦2        ¦Model H Vacuum Cleaners¦C $24 ¦
                +----------------------------------------+
                
+---------------------------------------------------+
                ¦Please acknowledge   ¦La Crosse Gas & Electric Co.,¦
                +---------------------+-----------------------------¦
                ¦receipt of this order¦By J. M. Lavaque.            ¦
                +---------------------+-----------------------------¦
                ¦by number and state  ¦Charge account No. 883.      ¦
                +---------------------+-----------------------------¦
                ¦when you will ship.  ¦Authorized.                  ¦
                +---------------------------------------------------+
                

Upon receipt of this order the plaintiff wrote to defendant, acknowledging receipt of the order and advising defendant that shipment would be made on April 25th. Defendant received the machines about the 1st day of May. By a letter dated July 1, 1914, defendant notified the plaintiff that the cleaners did not work satisfactorily, and that one of them did not work at all, and on July 13th reshipped them to plaintiff. Plaintiff refused to accept the machines, and advised the defendant that it held them at defendant's risk. The defendant, in answer to plaintiff's complaint for the purchase price, alleges that it was orally agreed before the order was given that it (defendant) should have the right of giving the cleaners a trial to ascertain if they were fit for the work intended. During the trial defendant offered evidence to show such a parol agreement, and that the machines did not comply therewith because defective in workmanship. The defendant claims that under the contract of sale there is an implied warranty that the cleaners would be free from defects, and offered evidence to show that one of the cleaners was so defective that it would not operate. The circuit court refused to admit evidence of a verbal warranty or of defects in the cleaners, and granted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Harnischfeger Sales Corporation v. Sternberg Dredging Co
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 3, 1940
    ... ... 183, 177 S.E. 23; ... 75 A. L. R. 1080; Ohio Elec. Co. v. Wisconsin-Minnesota ... L. & P. Co., 161 ... being of an agent, without power to do more than submit ... proposals, are not imputed to ... incompetent in the light of the peculiar language of the ... written sales ... ...
  • International Harvester Co. of America v. Leifer, 1646
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1930
    ...v. Ice Co., (Ala.) 75 So. 920; Murphy v. Gifford, (Mich.) 200 N.W. 263; Kophal v. Weisenbarger, (Mich.) 158 N.W. 122; Ohio Elec. Co. v. Power Co., (Wis.) 155 N.W. 112. Rulings of the court sustaining plaintiff's objections evidence on the question of agency were proper. Hatch Bros. v. Black......
  • Aetna Chemical Company v. Spaulding & Kimball Co.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1924
    ... ... power imposed upon the salesman, no act or undertaking of the ... v. Folsom , 237 ... Mass. 565, 130 N.E. 197; Ohio Electric Co. v ... Wisconsin-Minnesota Light, etc. Co ... ...
  • ÆTna Chem. Co. v. Spaulding & Kimball Co.
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • October 7, 1924
    ...88 N. J. Law, 174, 95 A. 986; Boston Consolidated Gas Co. v. Folsom, 237 Mass. 565, 130 N. E. 197; Ohio Elec. Co. v. Wisconsin-Minnesota Light, etc., Co., 161 Wis. 632, 155 N. W. 112), unless the fact that the buyer made known to the salesman the particular purpose for which the goods were ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT