W. Elec. Co. v. Baerthel

• Decision Date: 06 May 1905
• Citation: 103 N.W. 475,127 Iowa 467
• Parties: WESTERN ELECTRIC CO. v. BAERTHEL ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

127 Iowa 467

103 N.W. 475

WESTERN ELECTRIC CO.

v.BAERTHEL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 6, 1905.

Appeal from Superior Court of Cedar Rapids; J. H. Rothrock, Judge.

Suit to recover the contract price of an engine and electrical supplies sold to the defendants. There was a directed verdict for the plaintiff, and from a judgment thereon the defendants appeal. Affirmed.S. K. Tracy, for appellants.

U. C. Blake and Redmond & Stewart, for appellee.

SHERWIN, C. J.

There was a written contract between these parties by the terms of which the plaintiff agreed to furnish to the defendants f. o. b. car at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, an engine of certain size and power and two electric generators, described and warranted as follows: “There will be two generators, one 25 K. W., 550 volts which is equivalent to 33 H. P.--the other will be of 15 K. W., 125 volts and have a capacity of two hundred and forty (240) 16 candle power incandescent lamps. We guarantee these generators to be free from any inherent electrical or mechanical defects. We further guarantee them to stand an overload of 25 per cent. for two hours, or 50 per cent. overload for one hour. We further guarantee them to operate sparklessly from no load to 25 per cent. overload.” The defendants admitted the execution of the written contract pleaded by the plaintiff, but alleged that it did not contain their entire agreement, a part of which was oral, and by the terms of which the plaintiff undertook to furnish an electric lighting plant of sufficient power to light their hotel and run the elevator therein; all to their satisfaction. They alleged a breach of the oral warranty, but did not allege or attempt to prove that the engine and generators sold to them did not comply with the written warranty. They were not permitted to prove the oral warranty, and the correctness of the ruling excluding such testimony is the only question before us for determination. The written contract specified the power and capacity of the two generators which were to be furnished, and such power was, in effect, warranted therein. There is no contention that the generators did not possess the capacity stipulated for in the written contract. This capacity was limited by the express terms of the writing, and it is evident that the oral contract pleaded would have removed such limit, and demanded a capacity far in excess of that expressly contracted for, and would have been in conflict with the express agreement. That...