Oil City Iron Works v. Belmont

• Decision Date: 07 May 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 432.)
• Citation: Oil City Iron Works v. Belmont, 7 S.W.2d 772, 177 Ark. 223 (Ark. 1928)
• Parties: OIL CITY IRON WORKS v. BELMONT.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

7 S.W.2d 772

OIL CITY IRON WORKS v.BELMONT.

(No. 432.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 7, 1928.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1928.

Appeal from Union Chancery Court; Geo. M. Le Croy, Chancellor.

Suit by the Oil City Iron Works against H. B. Belmont, who filed a cross-complaint.From the decree rendered, plaintiff appeals.Reversed in part and cross-complaint dismissed, and affirmed and rendered in part.

Appellant brought this suit to recover the balance of the purchase price alleged to be due from appellee for a secondhand or used drilling rig sold to him and for an amount due on open account for machinery.

Appellee denied indebtedness to appellant in any sum, alleged that the drilling rig purchased was a secondhand rig not worth more than $3,000, that the sale price, $9,000, was greatly excessive, and by cross-complaint alleged that appellant expressly warranted the title to the property and both expressly and impliedly warranted that it was in first-class condition and fit for the purpose for which it was purchased; that at the time of the transaction the property was impounded or held under attachments and could not be delivered; that it was not in first-class condition as warranted, a part of same wholly unfit for use; and that appellee was damaged in the sum of $2,156 by breach of the warranties, for which judgment was prayed.

The reply denied the allegations of the cross-complaint and specifically that there was any express or implied warranty of the condition of the property, which it was alleged was sold "as is"; that appellee, after examination and inspection of the property, executed the note and agreement for the purchase price sued on, reciting the terms of the contract of sale and description of the property purchased.

The testimony shows that appellee approached appellant company at its offices in Shreveport, La., for the purchase of a drilling rig, and was informed by Mr. Price, its manager of oil field equipment, that it had two secondhand rigs, a light and a heavy one, in the Arkansas oil fields, which were for sale in existing condition; secondhand machinery not being guaranteed.Appellee was interested only in the purchase of the heavy rig located near Stephens, Ark., which he said he would like to see, and, after ascertaining that satisfactory arrangements could probably be made for payment, he had Mr. Franklin, an employee of appellant company, to call the Shreveport office and tell them he was ready to buy.Price went to El Dorado, met appellee, and, after getting a favorable opinion from its attorney about the proposed assignment by appellee of a part of a judgment appealed from to the Supreme Court as security for some of the purchase money, he and Franklin took Belmont to the location of the property for its inspection, having already told him that there would be no guaranty of secondhand equipment and he would have to come and examine it himself.Price said:

"We took Belmont to the location, Franklin and myself, and showed him the rig, and told him that was what he was getting, and he said all right."

Appellee held off a while, and, after an agreement for exchange of some of the old machinery for new, accepted the rig and moved it off the lease.Franklin testified he assisted in showing Belmont the rig, went with Price and Belmont to where the rig was set up, and showed it to him.

"We just told him that that was the derrick and he could look it over and examine it; it was a secondhand rig, but that it had just finished a well, and for him to look it over; so he looked it over.At that time he was satisfied with the rig; he said it was all right.After he came to...