S. Side Malleable Co. v. Four Wheel Drive Auto Co.

Citation181 N.W. 749,174 Wis. 93
PartiesSOUTH SIDE MALLEABLE CO. v. FOUR WHEEL DRIVE AUTO CO.
Decision Date08 March 1921
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Waupaca County; Byron B. Park, Judge.

Action by the South Side Malleable Company against the Four Wheel Drive Auto Company. From an order reaffirming order granting a new trial to plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This action is brought by plaintiff to recover the alleged contract price for castings furnished by plaintiff to defendant between January 28 and March 23, 1918. These castings were delivered by plaintiff to defendant. Defendant refused to pay for them on the ground that the castings contained cracks and blowholes, and were otherwise defective and unfit for the purposes for which they were intended. Plaintiff claims that a certain change was made in the pattern for the castings by defendant on January 26, 1918; that this change was made by an agent of the defendant; that this change in the equipment was the cause of the defects of which defendant complains.

The case was tried before the court and a jury. By a special verdict the jury found: That the defects in the castings were not caused by the change in pattern ordered by defendant's agent; that plaintiff's agent, who was informed of this change, had the authority to accept the change in equipment ordered by defendant's agent; that the plaintiff in the exercise of ordinary care should have discovered that the castings were cracked after the change made in the pattern equipment, and that the plaintiff should have discovered that the castings were cracked after 300 had been cast.

The court filed a decision holding that the jury's answer, to the effect that the defects were not caused by the change in the pattern equipment, was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, and that the production of 300 was too small a number of castings to enable defendant in the exercise of ordinary care to have discovered the defects in the castings. A new trial was granted. Defendant applied to the court to reconsider its decision, alleging that not only was there ample evidence to sustain the answers to the questions above mentioned, but that in any event it was entitled to judgment on the answers of the special verdict, which had been allowed to stand. The court filed a second decision, reaffirming the first decision, and ordered that the special verdict be set aside, and a new trial had, and that plaintiff pay the costs of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Smith v. Kleynerman, Case No.: 2015AP207
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 21 March 2017
    ...In re Saveland's Will , 173 Wis. 328, 181 N.W. 209 (1921) (on appeal).17. South Side Malleable Co. v. Four Wheel Drive Auto Co. , 174 Wis. 93, 181 N.W. 749 (1921) (on appeal).18. Kahn v. Melaney , 174 Wis. 95, 181 N.W. 737 (1921) (on appeal).19. Kroner v. Order of United Commercial Traveler......
  • Pattison v. Sheasby (In re Pattison's Will)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 9 February 1926
  • Wells v. Talham
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 5 June 1923
  • Jaster v. Miller
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • 8 March 1955
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT