Oldfield v. International Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 3. |
| Citation | 113 A. 632,138 Md. 35 |
| Parties | OLDFIELD v. INTERNATIONAL MOTOR CO. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Henry Duffy, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by John F. Oldfield against the International Motor Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial awarded.
J Royall Tippett, of Baltimore, and James J. Archer, of Bel Air (Wm. P. Constable, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Carl R McKenrick and Edgar Allan Poe, both of Baltimore (Bartlett Poe & Claggett, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
This is the second appeal in this case. The first appeal was from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment was reversed by this court for errors (134 Md. 207, 106 A. 611) in the prayers fixing the measure of damages. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendant, and brings up for review the action of the court below on the prayers construing the contract between the plaintiff and defendant and its rulings on the evidence embraced in two bills of exception.
In 1914 and 1915 the defendant company was engaged in the manufacture and sale of motor trucks of different makes and sizes, and maintained a factory at Plainfield, N. J., where it built the chassis, and a plant in New York, where the bodies of the trucks were constructed and placed on the chassis. In the fall of 1914 the plaintiff was contemplating starting a truck line for the transportation of miscellaneous freight between Baltimore and Havre de Grace, over the state road then under construction, and with that end in view he got into communication with Mr. Charles T. Cronin, who represented the defendant in Baltimore, and who gave the plaintiff one of the defendant's catalogues, containing "general, mechanical specifications" of the chassis manufactured by it, and also "gave him a demonstration of what" a 6 1/2 ton Saurer "truck could do." The road between Havre de Grace and Baltimore was completed in the spring of 1915, and in June the plaintiff went to see Mr. Cronin again, and Mr. Cronin took him to the defendant's factory in Plainfield and from there to its plant in New York, where he met Mr. Fetzer, head of the defendant's sales department, and Mr. Fulton, vice president of the defendant. The plaintiff states that he explained to them that he wanted a truck of "five ton capacity," and the purpose for which he wanted it, and that they recommended a Saurer truck, with a 177 1/2-inch wheel base, and a body like one they showed him and which they were building for another man to haul green groceries in. Mr. Cronin, a witness for the defendant, testified that when he took the plaintiff to Plainfield and New York he tried to interest him in a Mack truck; that "the Saurer truck used approximately 66 2/3 per cent. of the amount of gasoline that the Mack truck used and weighed 5,900 pounds, while the weight of the Mack was 8,500" pounds, and that the plaintiff thought that the Mack truck was too heavy and would require too much gasoline and oil. The plaintiff further testified that shortly after that visit he had an occasion to go to New York and went to the defendant's factory again to see the gentlemen he had met there; that the body that they had previously recommended had then been completed and was on the chassis; that he told them he thought it would be satisfactory, except that it was open in front; that they suggested that they could make a glass front, and insisted on getting up a sketch, which they did while he was there, and later mailed him a blueprint of it; that in talking to Mr. Fetzer and his assistant about the body, he asked them particularly about the weight of the body, and they told him they could not tell him positively about that, but that he could speak to Mr. Callahan, who was getting up the sketch of the body, and who could give him "positive information" as to what the body would weigh; that he then talked to Mr. Callahan, and that he said to the plaintiff, ; that it was in that connection they told him they would send him a blueprint of the body, which they did, and on the 28th of June, 1915, the Monday or Tuesday following the receipt of the blueprint, he went to Baltimore to see Mr. Rulon, the defendant's representative there, who had a copy of the blueprint and a contract of purchase already signed by the defendant company; that he agreed to purchase the truck on the terms set out in the contract, which he then signed, and the truck was delivered to and paid for by him on the 16th of August, 1915. The contract, which, with the blueprint, was offered in evidence, is as follows:
guaranteed live load capacity of ten thousand (10,000) pounds with regular equipment in accordance with standard specifications, which are to be considered part of this contract when accepted by the purchaser (complete with body as specified herein).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bekkevold v. Potts
... ... "No warranties have been made in reference to said motor ... vehicle by the seller to the buyer less expressly written ... hereon at the date of ... In substance ... this is the same as the language in International ... Harvester Co. v. Bean, 159 Ky. 842, 846, 169 S.W. 549, ... which said: "This express warranty ... v ... Bean, 159 Ky. 842, 169 S.W. 549 ... In ... Oldfield v. International Motor Co. 138 Md. 35, 39, 113 ... A. 632, the implied warranty was excluded by ... ...