Plano Manufacturing Company v. Richards
| Decision Date | 25 April 1902 |
| Docket Number | 12,998 - (112) |
| Citation | 90 N.W. 120,86 Minn. 94 |
| Parties | PLANO MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. WILLIAM RICHARDS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Todd county, Searle, J., denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and granting a motion for a new trial. Reversed, and judgment directed for plaintiff.
Warranty -- Pleading and Proof.
Upon an express promissory warranty against the known defects of an implement sold for use, it is necessary for the party relying upon the same to plead, as well as prove, what it actually was worth, as well as what it would have been worth if as warranted.
Failure to Plead -- Motion for Judgment.
Upon a claim for a breach of warranty, the failure to plead facts showing the difference between the value of the thing sold and its value had it been as warranted, is a substantial omission, that may be raised after verdict, upon a motion for judgment.
Judgment notwithstanding Verdict.
Upon a consideration of the pleadings in this case, held, from the failure to allege the essential facts to show that damages were occasioned by the alleged breach of the warranty, that judgment notwithstanding such verdict should have been ordered by the trial court.
Fred W Reed, for appellant.
P. V. Coppernoll, for respondent.
Action to recover on a promissory note for $70. Its execution is admitted, but it is claimed that the consideration therefor wholly failed, for the reasons, as substantially stated in the answer, that, prior to the making of the note, defendant had purchased a harvesting machine from plaintiff upon the warranty that it would do good work, and in payment gave his three notes, of $45 each; that the machine could not be made to do good work; that afterwards there was a settlement between the parties, by the terms of which it was agreed that, if defendant would execute and deliver the note upon which this suit is brought, plaintiff would surrender the three notes previously given, and before or during the next harvest would make the machine do good work, or, in the event of failure in that respect, would receive it back, and furnish in its place a new machine. The old notes were surrendered, and the one in suit given, but at no time before or at the next harvest did the plaintiff put the machine in condition to do good work, and it has never offered to deliver a new machine in place of the old one. There is no allegation in the answer of the value of the machine in question, nor was it alleged that it was worth more or less than the amount of the note, or that it would have been of any value whatever had the promise to make it do good work been fulfilled; nor was the value of a new harvester to be furnished in place of the old one, set forth. The case was tried to the court and jury, who found for defendant. Upon motion for a new trial, or judgment in the alternative, the court denied the motion for judgment, but directed a new trial. From this order, plaintiff appeals.
The evidence for defendant in the record does not go further than to support the allegations of the answer, and wholly fails to establish that the machine had any value. By his answer, defendant, in effect, admitted plaintiff's cause of action on the note, but avoided the same by pleading promises which it is alleged were not fulfilled. Upon facts similar to those set forth in the answer, this court has held that the undertaking on the part of plaintiff was what may be termed an "express promissory warranty" against the consequence of the then known defects of the machine. The measure of damages in such a case being the difference between the value of the article as it was, and what its value would have been if as warranted, or, in other words, what it would have cost to put the machine in good order to do good work, as guarantied. Fitzpatrick v. D.M. Osborne & Co., 50 Minn. 261, 52 N.W. 861. See also Reeves & Co. v. Cress, 73 Minn. 261, 76 N.W. 26
The essential requirements of a pleading, where a breach of warranty is relied upon to support a claim for damages, are First, the terms of the warranty; second, the allegations showing its breach; and, third, facts from which damages for its breach are to be inferred. Each of these elements of the cause of action is essential...
To continue reading
Request your trial