Pratt v. Metzger
Decision Date | 10 March 1906 |
Citation | 95 S.W. 451,78 Ark. 177 |
Parties | PRATT v. METZGER |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Conway Circuit Court; William L. Moose, Judge; reversed.
Reversed and remand.
W. P Strait, for appellant.
1. Where a warranty is upon condition, or when some duty is devolved upon the purchaser by the terms of the warranty such condition must be fulfilled upon his part before he can interpose the breach as a defense. 28 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 830; 75 Ark. 206; 76 Ark. 74; 71 Iowa 101; 36 Kan. 439; 18 S.W. 789; 3 Wash. 603. The vendee must show that the conditions have been complied with. 14 Pa.St. 211; 21 Barb. 236; 1 Iowa 531; 11 N.E. 206; 12 N.E. 495; 55 N.W. 580; 11 Neb. 116. Where the vendee refuses to comply with his part of the contract, he puts it out of his power to rescind. 88 Iowa 607.
2. If a party signs a contract without reading it, or relying upon the representations of a stranger, he is nevertheless bound by it, and can not testify to an understanding of it contrary to its written terms. 71 Ark. 185; 46 Ind. 116; 43 Iowa 561; 106 Ind. 406; 14 Ind. 499; 50 Cal. 558; 67 Iowa 547; 59 Iowa 416; 71 Ill. 456. See also 12 Neb. 438; N. Y. 640; 11 Utah 29; 130 U.S. 643.
3. The court erred in refusing instruction 3 asked for by appellant. A contract having several distinct items, and founded upon a consideration apportioned to each, is severable, 76 Ark. 74; Beach, Contracts, § 731; 40 Cal. 251; 66 Pa.St. 351.
4. The court erred in giving its instructions "A," "C" and "D." 30 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2 Ed.), 203, 204 and notes; 35 Mo. 229; 55 Am. St. Rep. 837; 79 Mo. 264; 116 Wis. 130; 68 Iowa 94. See also 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1227; Benj. on Sales (6 Ed.), § 667; 2 East, 314; 72 Ala. 288; 67 Minn. 329.
Sellers & Sellers, for appellee.
This case is very much like Pratt v. Meyer, 75 Ark. 206, 87 S.W. 123. Walter Pratt & Company brought an action against M. A. Metzger, before a justice of the peace of Conway County, for $ 198.88, upon a written contract by which the plaintiffs agreed to sell and deliver to the defendant a bill of perfumes, soaps and toilet articles. In the justice's court the defendant recovered judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court, where the defendant was again successful, and plaintiffs appealed to this court.
The same order for the goods was given in this case as was given in Pratt v. Meyer, supra, and the same warranty was made and on the same conditions. The same evidence, substantially, was adduced by the plaintiffs in the two cases.
Appellee testified over the objections of appellants as follows: and that the goods purchased were not suitable for his trade.
The court refused to instruct the jury, at the request of appellants, as follows:
And instructed them, over the objections of the appellants, as follows:
The first instruction asked for by the appellants was based upon the contract sued on, and should have been given. Appellee agreed, as a part of the contract, "to examine and inspect the goods at once upon their arrival at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ramsey v. Ramsey
... ... Hampshire, 485 S.W.2d 314 (Tex.Civ.App.1972). See also, Donovan v. Donovan, supra; accord, Below v. Griffis, 249 Ark. 589, 460 S.W.2d 80; Pratt v. Metzger, 78 Ark. 177, 95 S.W. 451 ... We certainly cannot agree with appellee that his testimony was clear, convincing or cogent ... ...
-
Huddleston v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company
... ... 177, 37 S.W. 719; ... St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Woodward, ... 70 Ark. 441, 69 S.W. 55; Fordyce v. Key. 74 ... Ark. 19, 84 S.W. 797; Pratt v. Metzger, 78 ... Ark. 177, 95 S.W. 451; Harris Lumber Co. v ... Morris, 80 Ark. 260, 96 S.W. 1067 ... It is ... unnecessary ... ...
- Martin v. Monger
- Huddleston v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.