Rowell v. Oleson

• Decision Date: 10 July 1884
• Citation: 20 N.W. 227,32 Minn. 288
• Parties: J. S. Rowell and others v. Aanond Oleson
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

20 N.W. 227

32 Minn. 288

J. S. Rowell and others v. Aanond Oleson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

July 10, 1884

Action upon a promissory note, brought in the district court for Fillmore county. Defendant pleaded, as a defence and counterclaim, a breach of warranty alleged to have been made by plaintiffs upon the sale to defendant of a Tiger Threshing-machine Separator, for a part of the purchase price of which the note in suit was given. Upon the trial before Farmer, J., and a jury, the court received in evidence under plaintiffs' objection and exception, the following warranty in writing, viz.:

"Sept 6, 1880.

"I hereby guarantee that this Tiger Separator shall do good work in every respect, and as light draft as any in the market and if said machine does not do good work, the notes shall be returned to A. Oleson Q.

S. E Ford."

Evidence was also admitted, under plaintiffs' objection and exception, to show that S. E. Ford signed the warranty as the agent of plaintiff, and at the time of the sale. The plaintiffs introduced in evidence a warranty given defendant in the following form, viz.:

"The above machine is warranted to do as good business in threshing and cleaning grain as any other machine in the world, to be well and substantially made, well finished, of good material, well painted, and durable with proper care. If said machine will not bear the above warranty, it is to be returned after a trial of two weeks to the place of delivery, and another substituted that will answer such warranty, or the money and notes immediately refunded."

It was also in evidence that the defendant never returned or offered to return the machine. Defendant had a verdict, and plaintiffs appeal from an order refusing a new trial.

Order reversed.

H. R. Wells, for appellants.

H. S. Bassett, for respondent.

The court did not err in refusing to exclude the warranty signed by S. E. Ford. Pratt v. Beaupre, 13 Minn. 177, (187;) Bingham v. Stewart, 14 Minn. 153, (214;) Ames v. First Div., etc., R. Co., 12 Minn. 295, (412;) Weide v. Porter, 22 Minn. 429; Frohreich v. Gammon, 28 Minn. 476; Deering v. Thom, 29 Minn. 120; Osborn v. Rawson, 47 Mich. 206; Byington v. Simpson, 45 Am. R. 314; S. C., 134 Mass. 169; Merrill v. Kenyon, 40 Am. R. 174; S. C., 48 Conn. 314.

OPINION

Gilfillan, C. J.

It was error in the court below to admit in evidence the warranty signed "S. E. Ford." That warranty was immaterial, and could tend but to confuse and mislead the jury, unless it was the contract of the plaintiffs. There was no attempt to show it to be their contract except by parol. That was incompetent. Where by its terms a contract is the contract of A, to show that it is the contract of B will vary or contradict its terms, as much as will evidence to change any other provision in it. Although the authorities are not in harmony on the point, the weight of them is to the effect that it cannot be done by parol. Ewell's Evans on Agency, 248, [177] and note.

A departure to some extent from this rule was established in this state by the cases of Pratt v Beaupre, 13 Minn. 177, (187,) and Bingham v. Stewart, 14 Minn. 153, (214;) followed by Deering v. Thom, 29 Minn. 120, 12 N.W. 350, in which the court acted upon the proposition that when words (such as "agent," "trustee," or the like) which may be either descriptive of the person or indicative...