Strauss v. American Chewing Gum Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1908
• Parties: STRAUSS et al. v. AMERICAN CHEWING GUM CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

114 S.W. 73

134 Mo. App. 110

STRAUSS et al. v. AMERICAN CHEWING GUM CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 1, 1908.

1. SALES (§ 428)—BREACH OF WARRANTY—BUYER'S REMEDY.

On breach of a warranty, the buyer can retain the goods, and, when sued for the price, recoup in damages the difference between the value of the goods as warranted and their actual value.

2. TRIAL (§ 139)—DIRECTION OF VERDICT—SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE.

In an action for the price of goods, it was proper to direct a verdict for plaintiffs where there was no substantial evidence of a warranty, breach of which was relied on as a defense, though there was a scintilla of evidence to that effect.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 1028)—AFFIRMANCE —HARMLESS ERROR.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 865 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 816), a judgment manifestly for the right party should be affirmed, where any error is immaterial.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Matt. G. Reynolds, Judge.

Action by Morris Strauss and others against the American Chewing Gum Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. P. & C. B. Williams, for appellant. Claud D. Hall, for respondents.

BLAND, P. J.

The action is to recover on the following account:

American Chewing Gum Company, St. Louis, Mo., Bought of Adolph Strauss & Co., Importers and Commission Merchants, Sole Agents for Messner Harmonicas and Wm. Elliott & Company Cutlery, 412 Broadway. 30 days extra.

                                         Nov. 3, 1906
                  2533   200 Doz.   Knives .................  .75   150
                   702    17 Doz.   Razors ..................3.      51
                   720    34 Doz.     do ....................3.     102
                   722    34 Doz.     do ....................3.     102
                   723    34 Doz.     do ....................3.     102
                   725    34 Doz.     do ....................3.     102
                   726    34 Doz.     do ....................3.     102
                   543    17 Doz.     do ....................3.      51
                                                                   ____   762
                                         Nov. 13, 1906
                  7163 7½ Gro. Glass Charm Compasses 7.50                     56.25
                  Special 227 Sets Razors ......... 4.10                  930.70
                                         Nov. 19, 1906
                  Special 150 Sets Razors .........4.10                   615
                                         Dec. 5, 1906.
                  Asst. 204 Doz. Razors ...........3.                     612.
                                                                        ________
                                                                        $2975.95
                      By cash on account .............                   1800.
                                                                        _________
                                                                         1175.95
                      Interest to May 1, 1907 ........                     32.80
                                                                        _________
                                                                        $1208.75
                

The answer was a general denial, and the following affirmative defense and counterclaim: "Defendant says that after the order for the goods and merchandise mentioned in plaintiffs' petition had been given, and before shipment or delivery of said goods, the defendant countermanded the said order and plaintiffs accepted said countermand, and duly acquiesced in same, and that said parties thereafter made a new contract, by the terms of which the plaintiffs agreed to sell and deliver the razors mentioned in plaintiffs' petition at and for a price of $4 per set, a set consisting of 16 razors. Defendant further says that plaintiffs at said time, and as a part of said contract of sale, warranted the said razors to be as good in quality as the `Kastor' razor, which said razor was well worth the sum of $4.10 per set of 16 razors, and defendant says that said razors were not as good in quality as the Kastor razor, but, upon the contrary, said razors were worthless and of no value,...