Sanders v. D. Landreth Seed Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1915
• Docket Number: 9043.
• Citation: 84 S.E. 880,100 S.C. 389
• Parties: SANDERS v. D. LANDRETH SEED CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

84 S.E. 880

100 S.C. 389

SANDERS v. D. LANDRETH SEED CO.

No. 9043.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 3, 1915

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Beaufort County; I. W Bowman, Judge.

Action by Gustave Sanders against the D. Landreth Seed Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mordecai & Gadsden & Rutledge, of Charleston, for appellant.

W. J Thomas, of Beaufort, for respondent.

FRASER J.

The respondent gave to the appellant the following order:

"G Sanders, Treasurer Beaufort County. Order with D. Landreth Seed Co., Bristol, Pa Beaufort, S. C., Jan. 15, 1910. 200 Sax Cobblers @ 2.90 20 Sax Spaulding Rose @ 3.45 --------------------------------------- 20 bus. Peas, Ameer, @ 4.50 50 No cuc Extraordinary Spunc 65 20 bu. Beans, Red Valentine 3.25 1 No. Nelon, Kleckley Sweet N/C Shipment Dec. 20, "'09 Subject to revision or cancellation till Nov. 1st, 1909.

[Signed] V. V. Vansant.

July 22, 1909."

The order was written on the official stationery of Mr. Sanders, but it was for his private use. The goods were shipped to appellant's agents in Savannah, Ga., in car load lots, and the potatoes intended for Mr. Sanders were there separated and reshipped to respondent at Beaufort, S.C. The bill of lading, with draft attached, was sent to a bank in Beaufort, to order notify Gustave Sanders. Mr. Sanders paid the draft, and took the bill of lading to the transportation company, and took possession of the potatoes and sent them to his farm. Comparatively few came up, and this action is brought to recover damages for the defective seed potatoes.

There is testimony tending to show that the potatoes were in bad condition when Mr. Sanders took charge of them, and that he knew it. The defendant in its answer admitted that the price was sound, but alleged that it had delivered a sound article; that the plaintiff had every opportunity to inspect the potatoes and, after inspection, accepted them; that the same was without any warranty; and that the defendant is not liable for the failure of the potatoes to germinate.

The invoice, and it is said the bill of lading contains the following:

Invoice offered in evidence marked "Exhibit B."

Exhibit B--HDE.

The D. Landreth Seed Co. give no warrant, express or implied, as to description, quality, productiveness, or any other matter of any seeds they send out, and they 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.

In preparing onion sets and potatoes for shipment every possible care is taken to insure safe carriage and delivery, but the precarious nature of such articles makes it necessary that we should call the attention of our customers to the fact that after delivery in good order to transportation company (which thereupon becomes the agent of consignee), our responsibility ceases, and the risk of safe carriage, delays of carriers, and damage from any cause whatever, must be assumed by the purchaser. No claim for damage will be allowed by us. Onion sets should be taken out of the barrels or crates as soon as received and spread out on a dry floor.

Burnet Landreth, President.

Burnet Landreth, Jr., Treas.

S. Phillips Landreth, Sec'y.

Bloomsdale Seed Farms,

Bristol, Pa., Jan. 5, 1910.

Mr. Gustav Sanders,

Beaufort, S. C.

Bought of D. Landreth Seed Co.,

Founded 1784, Incorporated 1904.

_____ packages _____ 220 bags

Boxes 36,300. _____ crates _____ bbls. Garden Seed Farmers and Merchants.

We do not guarantee safe carriage or delivery of goods. After shipment in good order, our responsibility ceases. Your recourse is upon the carrier.

Shipped at Risk of Purchaser.

No goods taken back. All claims must be made within five days.

All Orders are Received Subject to Results of Crops. Net cash, due on date of shipment, subject to draft at sight.

Potatoes:

130 sacks Irish Cobblers @ 2.90 .. 377.00 20 sack Spaulding Rose @ 3.45 .. 69.00 70 sack Sunlight @ 2.90 .. 203.00""649.00 Freight 36,300 Ibs. Bristol to Beaufort @ 29c..... 75.87 ------ Less freight Savannah @ 10c. sack ................ 22.00 ------ 702.87

These goods are shipped to order.

The testimony was conflicting. The jury found for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered upon their verdict, the defendant appealed.

The following are the exceptions:

1. "There was no testimony tending to show that the defendant was responsible for the quality of the seed furnished the plaintiff or for its productiveness or for the crop, and the evidence showed that the defendant had expressly disclaimed any such responsibility."

The weak place in appellant's case is that very disclaimer of responsibility for the quality of goods furnished. The attack was on the quality. The general rule is, undoubtedly, that a sound price warrants a sound article. The effort to combine the order with the statement on the invoice and bill of lading, as a matter of law, must fail under Grocery Co. v. Brooke, 70 S.C. 496, 50 S.E. 186.

In that case inspection was allowed before the payment of the draft, and the permission was written on the bill of lading, and yet this court held that the purchaser was not bound to exercise the permission. Here there was no such indorsement and the agent of the transportation company said, while he did not feel bound to allow goods to be opened by every one, he would probably have allowed the plaintiff to open and inspect, as he was a responsible man.

When the plaintiff first saw the potatoes (and we have seen that he was not bound to inspect) he had already paid the draft taken the bill of lading, and was then the owner of the goods. It is...