Walker v. Grout Bros. Automobile Co.
Decision Date | 30 April 1907 |
Citation | 102 S.W. 25,124 Mo. App. 628 |
Parties | WALKER v. GROUT BROS. AUTOMOBILE CO. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
A woman, desirous of buying an automobile that she could run without manual labor, bought a machine from a manufacturer, who assured her that a woman could operate it. The contract of sale stipulated that the machine should be satisfactory to her. Held that, if the machine was not satisfactory, she had the right to return it to the manufacturer, and demand a return of the price.
2. SAME — RESCISSION — RECOVERY OF PURCHASE PRICE—PETITION.
A petition in an action by a buyer of an automobile for the price paid, which alleged that the buyer bought an automobile and paid a specified sum therefor; that as a part of the contract the seller agreed that the machine could be operated with ease by a woman and that it should be satisfactory to the buyer; that the machine delivered could not be operated by a woman and was not satisfactory; that later the seller delivered to the buyer another machine in exchange for the one first delivered; that the second machine could not be operated, and was not satisfactory to the buyer—sufficiently alleged that the second machine was delivered in pursuance of the original contract of sale, and not under a new contract for the exchange of one machine for another, and stated but one cause of action.
3. SAME — REDELIVERY OF GOODS BOUGHT — PROOF.
In an action by a buyer of an automobile to recover the price paid, the buyer testified that, at her request, the seller's agents made repeated efforts to repair the machine and make it satisfactory as warranted, but that they could not do it and that she sent it back and turned it over to the buyer. Held to show that the buyer delivered the machine to the seller, entitling her to recover.
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel G. Taylor, Judge.
Action by Helen Walker against the Grout Bros. Automobile Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Defendant is a Massachusetts corporation, and has its chief office and place of business in Orange, in said state. During the period of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in 1904 defendant had the Grout automobile on exhibition on the exposition grounds. Plaintiff, a resident of the city of St. Louis, in June, 1904, bought a Grout automobile of defendant, paying $700 therefor. In regard to the purchase plaintiff's evidence tends to show that in a conversation with Charles Grout, president and manager of defendant company, Grout said that his car was Plaintiff testified a machine was sent out to her residence (4561 Morgan street) and a demonstrator furnished to teach her how to handle and operate it; and that she objected to the machine for several reasons, and particularly on account of an air-pump attachment, which had to be worked by hand power; the labor required to work the pump being too heavy for her. At the suggestion of defendant, plaintiff was furnished another machine, having an automatic air-pump attachment, which plaintiff testified defendant represented to her would work of itself and never require the use of hand power. The automobile was operated by steam power, generated by the consumption of gasoline, and the pump was also operated by steam through a valve on the boiler, so, if there was no steam in the boiler and air was required, hand power had to be used to work the pump. Plaintiff testified she was not strong enough to work the pump, and was compelled to keep the machine in a garage where she could have the air tank filled. Plaintiff testified she wished to keep the machine in her own stable at her home, but, on account of being unable to pump it up, she was forced to keep it in a garage. Plaintiff's evidence is that she wanted a machine she could handle and operate herself and so informed Charles Grout, president and superintendent of defendant company, and she testified that Grout said ladies operated defendant's machines; that any lady could operate one of them; that the machine was peculiarly fitted to be operated by ladies. In regard to the second machine furnished plaintiff, her testimony, in part, is as follows:
The following is Charles Grout's version of the transaction: There is no evidence showing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Laumeier v. Dolph
... ... Mullikin, 88 Mo.App. 350; Courtney v. Boswell, ... 65 Mo. 196; Walker v. Automobile Co., 124 Mo.App ... 628. (4) The seller impliedly warrants ... 350; ... Courtney v. Boswell, 65 Mo. 196; Walker v. Grout" ... Brothers Automobile Co., 124 Mo.App. 628, 102 S.W. 25.] ... \xC2" ... ...
- Walker v. Grout Brothers Automobile Company
-
Laumeier v. Dolph
...Osborne v. Henry, 70 Mo. App. 19; Osborne v. Mullikin, 88 Mo. App. 350; Courtney v. Boswell, 65 Mo. 196; Walker v. Grout Brothers Automobile Co., 124 Mo. App. 628, 102 S. W. 25. The defendants impliedly warranted that the chattel was fit for the purpose for which it was intended, and no spe......
-
Butsch v. Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co.
...103; Walker v Grout Brothers Automobile Co., 124 Mo.App. 628; Wood Reaping & Mowing Machine Company v. Smith, 50 Mich. 565; Walker case, 124 Mo.App. 640; I Master and Servant (2 Ed.), 197, page 615; Elliott on Contracts, secs. 1603 and 1605. (2) The court erred in the instructions in submit......