W. A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Mach. Co. v. Crow
| Decision Date | 14 December 1886 |
| Citation | 30 N.W. 609,70 Iowa 340 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | W. A. WOOD MOWING & REAPING MACHINE CO. v. CROW. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Page county.
Action on three promissory notes. Trial by jury. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.Phillips & Day and Jas. McCabe, for appellant.
Stockton & Keenan, for appellee.
The case was tried in the district court on the theory that the defendant, as a defense, pleaded the notes were given in consideration of a reaping-machine purchased by him of the plaintiff, which had been warranted, and that it had failed to conform to the warranty, and was worthless. It is difficult to ascertain from the answer the nature and extent of the warranty. The statements in relation thereto are exceedingly loose and general. Whatever the warranty was, it was not in writing, but was in parol, and made by the agents of the plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff furnished to its agents a printed warranty, and there is testimony tending to show they were not authorized to give any other or different warranty than the one furnished. The defendant testified that he knew the company had a printed warranty, but that, instead of getting a warranty of that kind, he purchased the machine on an oral warranty, given by the agent. The court instructed the jury as follows: “If you find and believe, from the evidence, that Elliott & Cass were the agents of the plaintiff * * * for the sale of their machines, and that they sold defendant the machine for which the notes sued on were given, and at the time they sold him said machine they verbally warranted it to do good work, as alleged in the answer, then you are instructed that the plaintiff would be bound by such warranty, unless you find and believe from the evidence that said Elliott & Cass were restricted by plaintiff from making or giving another warranty than the printed warranty furnished by plaintiff, and that this fact was brought to the knowledge of the defendant at or prior to the time he purchased said machine.”
As applied to the evidence, the instruction amounts, simply, to this: If a person constitutes another his agent for the sale of any article of merchandise, and furnishes him with the kind of warranty he may give, and the purchaser has knowledge that such a warranty was furnished the agent, yet the purchaser may accept a parol warranty different in its terms from the agent, and require the principal to comply with such oral warranty. We do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial