Rocky Mountain Seed Co. v. Knorr

• Court: Colorado Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HILLIARD, Justice.
• Citation: Rocky Mountain Seed Co. v. Knorr, 92 Colo. 320, 20 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1933)
• Decision Date: 13 March 1933
• Docket Number: 13195.
• Parties: ROCKY MOUNTAIN SEED CO. v. KNORR.

20 P.2d 304

92 Colo. 320

ROCKY MOUNTAIN SEED CO. v. KNORR.

No. 13195.

Supreme Court of Colorado

March 13, 1933

In Department. of Denver; F. F. Hunter and George A. Luxford, of Denver; F. F. Hunter and George A. Lexford, Judges.

Action by the Rocky Mountain Seed Company against A. H. Knorr. To review a judgment of the County Court in favor of the defendant on his counterclaim, on appeal from a justice of the peace, the plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Howard Roepnack and D. K. Wolfe, Jr., both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Foster Cline and George A. Trout, both of Denver, for defendant in error.

HILLIARD Justice.

Plaintiff sued Before a justice of the peace for $144.50, claimed balance, with interest, of an open account, to which defendant interposed a counterclaim. To an adverse judgment of $300 plaintiff appealed to the county court, where defendant again prevailed, there in the sum of $240.90. Plaintiff assigns error.

There were no written pleadings, but it fairly appears from the record that plaintiff is in the retail seed business in Denver, and that defendant is a farmer; that in the spring of 1929 defendant went to plaintiff's place of business to buy seeds for planting, and one of her requirements was alfalfa seed, of which, in two lots, she bought at a cost of $68.80, and, with other purchases, became indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $217.70, toward the discharge of which she subsequently paid $100; that with oats, called a nurse crop, what defendant bought as alfalfa seed was sowed but it made no appreciable growth in 1929; that when in 1930 determination was possible, defendant discovered, so she claimed, that the prospective crop was not alfalfa, but sweet clover, of which she immediately notified plaintiff and its representative made examination. Whether the seed plaintiff delivered to defendant on her request for alfalfa seed was not sweet clover instead, was the principal fact issue presented, and the jury's verdict, warranted by the evidence, was to the effect that the delivery was of sweet clover seed. It further appears that on its invoices plaintiff has printed the following: 'We give no warranty, express or implied, as to description, quantity, productiveness or any other matter of any seeds, bulbs or plants we send out, and will not be in any way responsible for the crop. If the purchaser does not accept the goods on these terms, they are at once to be returned. All claims must be made within 3 days after receipt of goods.' And in some modified form the same disclaimer appears on packages containing seeds of which it makes delivery to its customers, and on tags attached to larger containers, such as bags. The record indicates that the invoice which defendant received of her purchase carried the quoted matter, and that the packages and bags were all similarly marked; but it does not appear that defendant's attention was called to the matter or that she was otherwise advised about it, except as it may be claimed she was bound to read what was thus printed. Based on this negation of warranty, and on its offer to prove that it is the custom and usage of all seed houses in all states of the United States and of foreign countries, to refuse to warrant seeds, which offer the court denied, plaintiff makes its principal argument.

When defendant called at plaintiff's store to make purchases for the season's planting, alfalfa seed being among her wants, plaintiff engaged to supply her demands, and made delivery in containers or packages labeled to indicate contents, in seeming conformity with defendant's order. Certain of the packages delivered by plaintiff purported to be of alfalfa seed, but, as we have seen, the crop grown from the seed so labeled and delivered was sweet clover, shown to be worthless. But because of the nonwarranty clause appearing on its invoices and delivery tags, plaintiff urges its exemption from liability. On the record we doubt the soundness of that doctrine. It will be observed that defendant's contention is not that the delivery was short in quantity, or was lacking in productiveness, or was an inferior kind of alfalfa, or that the crop failed, but rather that on a purchase of alfalfa seed plaintiff made delivery of sweet clover seed. In the circumstances defendant's cause of action is grounded, not on breach of plai...