Seeley v. Welles

• Decision Date: 23 April 1888
• Docket Number: 402
• Citation: 120 Pa. 69,13 A. 736
• Parties: I. J. SEELEY v. R. M. WELLES
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

13 A. 736

120 Pa. 69

I. J. SEELEY v. R. M. WELLES

No. 402

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 23, 1888

Argued March 15, 1888

ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BRADFORD COUNTY.

No. 402 January Term 1887, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 963 May Term 1886, C.P.

On May 1, 1886, an appeal was filed by the defendant from the judgment of a justice of the peace in favor of R. M. Welles against I. J. Seeley.

At the trial on February 4, 1887, it appeared that the plaintiff had sued the defendant to recover $50, the first instalment of $150, the price of an Osborne reaper and binder he claimed to have sold and delivered to the defendant in August, 1885. The reaper had been operated a few days and then returned by the defendant as unsatisfactory.

The contention was whether the sale was absolute, as claimed by the plaintiff, or conditional as claimed by the defendant who testified: "I told him I would come down and try it and if it worked to suit me and my team could handle it satisfactorily on my land, I would buy it, otherwise I would not, and I told him I was to be the judge."

The charge of the court, MORROW, P.J., showing the material facts of the case, was as follows:

The important controversy in this case grows out of the alleged sale of a reaper and binder by the plaintiff to the defendant. It seems that Mr. Welles was engaged in selling agricultural implements and that Mr. Bradley, who lives in the vicinity of Mr. Seeley, was also selling machines. Mr. Bradley and Mr. Seeley had a talk about Mr. Welles having this Osborne binder, about the third of August, and Mr. Bradley says he told Mr. Seeley that he thought Mr. Welles would sell it cheap, as it was getting late in the season. They had some talk about the price for which it could be bought, and afterwards Mr. Espy, who was in the employ of Mr. Welles, went up and saw Mr. Seeley in company with Mr. Bradley, on Friday. Mr. Espy says it was the 7th day of August. They found Mr. Seeley at work in the field, and after some conversation as to the price and the terms of sale, it was arranged that Mr. Seeley should come to Towanda and get the machine the fore part of the next week. He came, however, on Saturday, of the same week, and went to C. P. Welles' store, and he telephoned for Mr. R. M. Welles, who came down. Mr. Welles testifies that he talked with him about buying the machine, and that if he paid $50.00 or $60.00 down he would give him a year on his note, for the payment of the balance, and that if he took the machine they would see that it worked well, and that it was upon those terms that he took the machine.

On the following Tuesday Mr. McGill and Mr. Espy went up to Seeley's place, to set up the machine, and try it, and they both testify that it worked well. Mr. Bradley testifies to the same effect. They say they went around a nine or ten acre lot before dinner, and then unhitched and went to the house. After dinner Mr. Seeley and Mr. Espy went out of the house, Mr. Seeley sat down in the hammock, and Mr. Espy sat down near him, and they talked over how the machine worked. Mr. Bradley testifies that he went down where they were while they were talking about how the machine worked. Mr. Espy says that Mr. Seeley said he was satisfied with the way the machine worked, but that he did not want the trucks, and that it was agreed that he should have the machine, without the trucks, for $150.00, or with the trucks, for $160.00.

In the afternoon Mr. Seeley got another horse, and they went up to the field again, and cut around the piece. They say that there was some trouble in the working of the machine, and Espy and McGill say that it was caused by the buckwheat that stood in the oats in some places, which was green, and would not work like ripe grain, and that a shower came up, and wet the grain, so that they had to quit. The bargain as testified to by Mr. Espy, and Mr. Bradley, was that Mr. Seeley was to keep the machine, to pay $50.00 within a few days, and give his note for $100.00, payable in one year from September 1, 1885. Mr. McGill does not claim to have heard that talk, but he says that he understood from the conversation before he came away, that Mr. Seeley was satisfied with the machine. Several witnesses have testified, on behalf of the plaintiff, as to a bargain by Mr. Seeley to go and cut Mr. Bradley's grain. They say that the price was talked about, that Mr. Seeley thought it was worth $1.25 an acre, but that it was finally agreed that Mr. Bradley should furnish a third horse, and pay $1.00 an acre. This evidence was given by the plaintiff for the purpose of showing that the defendant had accepted the machine and considered it to be his, at that time.

On the part of he defendant he says that the agreement was that he was to have a trial of the machine, upon his own place, and if it did not operate so as to satisfy him he was not to keep it. He says there was nothing said as to whether he was to bring it back, or whether Mr. Welles was to come after it that while the machine was in operation, both before and after dinner, he told them, all the while, that it did not perform well, and that he was not satisfied with it, and that he did not at any time agree to purchase it or keep it. He also testifies that when he took the machine both Mr. Welles and Mr. Espy told him that it would draw as easily as a plow on the same land. A few days after Mr. Espy and Bradley were there, Mr. Seeley made another trial of the machine, going once around the lot again, and he says that it would not work, and then under the agreement as he claimed it to be, he returned the machine to Mr. Welles, in Towanda. If you believe the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, particularly of Espy and Bradley, as to what occurred at the hammock, then there was a complete contract, and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover. [If, on the other hand, you believe the evidence on the part of the defendant, that he was to take the machine and try it, and that he was not to keep it unless it worked to his satisfaction, then the plaintiff cannot recover, provided you find that the machine did not work well, and that he had reasonable cause to be dissatisfied with it. But if the machine did good work he could not say "I have made a bad bargain, I am not satisfied," and return the machine. In other words, there must have been a reasonable cause for his dissatisfaction, and the returning of the machine must have been in good faith.] You have heard the evidence of the different witnesses as to what occurred in the field before dinner, as to what occurred at the hammock, after dinner, as to what occurred in the field after dinner, and as to what occurred at the barn, where they went after the shower, and we will not stop to call your attention to this evidence in detail. ....