Willson v. Vlahos
| Decision Date | 28 February 1929 |
| Citation | 266 Mass. 370 |
| Parties | O.H. WILLSON v. JOHN VLAHOS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
December 4, 1928.
Present: RUGG, C.
J., CROSBY CARROLL, WAIT, & SANDERSON, JJ.
Contract Construction, Performance and breach. Sale, Warranty. Damages, Recoupment. Strawberries, shipped by a seller in Arkansas to a purchaser in
Massachusetts in response to a telegram reading: : are sold subject to an express warranty that they are "best stock."
At the hearing by a judge without a jury of an action of contract for the purchase price of berries sold upon the order above quoted there was no evidence that the words "best stock" had any special or peculiar significance in the trade in Arkansas, except testimony by an expert called by the defendant "that strawberries which had suffered preshipment injury, either mechanical or from overheating did not `come in the trade within the description of best stock.'" It appeared that the berries had suffered from preshipment injury due to overheating, and that thereby the defendant had suffered damage in excess of the purchase price. The defendant did not discover the condition of the berries until many had been sold by him. He claimed damages in recoupment. There was a finding for the plaintiff. Held, that
(1) Upon the evidence, the words "best stock" were to be interpreted as commonly understood and used and related not only to grading but to quality;
(2) There was a breach of the express warranty that the berries would be "best stock";
(3) The finding should have been for the defendant.
Although it appeared, at the hearing of the action above described, that the damages suffered by the defendant by reason of the breach of warranty by the plaintiff exceeded the amount due the plaintiff from the defendant for the berries, the defendant could not recover such excess in the action against him for the purchase price.
CONTRACT for the purchase price of strawberries alleged to have been purchased of the plaintiff in Van Buren, Arkansas, and shipped to the defendant in Lowell, Massachusetts. Writ dated June 2, 1927.
In the Superior Court, the action was heard by Weed, J., without a jury. Material evidence before him and facts found and rulings made by him are stated in the opinion. He found for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,325.63. The defendant alleged exceptions.
A.S. Howard, for the defendant. S. Baker, for the plaintiff.
This is an action of contract to recover the purchase price of a carload of strawberries. The amended answer contains a general denial, payment, and sets up by way of recoupment that the plaintiff expressly warranted that the strawberries were to be of the best stock, and impliedly warranted that they were in proper condition to stand shipment from Van Buren, Arkansas, to Lowell in this Commonwealth, and to be in merchantable condition for resale at Lowell; that there was a breach of both warranties by the plaintiff which the defendant did not discover until after many of the berries had been sold by him, but that upon such discovery he gave the plaintiff opportunity to reclaim them, which was refused to the damage of the defendant. The case was tried before a judge of the Superior Court without a jury and is before this court upon exceptions taken by the defendant to certain findings and rulings. The findings contain all the evidence material to the issues raised by the bill of exceptions except two exhibits annexed thereto marked "A" and "B".
The judge made the following findings: The plaintiff sold to the defendant a carload of strawberries, "best stock," upon the latter's order by telegram, dated May 7, 1927, sent to the plaintiff at Van Buren, Arkansas, in the following form:
The berries were delivered to the American Railway Express f.o.b. Van Buren, for shipment to the defendant in Lowell, on the evening of May 8, 1927. The price charged was fair, and the defendant has not paid the plaintiff for the berries. These findings dispose of the issues raised by the general denial and the plea of payment.
The judge further found that "the car was not delayed in transit, and that the condition in which the berries were found upon arrival in Lowell was not due to the fault of the carrier." He rightly found that the contract was made in Arkansas Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374 , 375, 376. Stone v. Old Colony Street Railway, 212 Mass. 459 , 462, 463, Walling v. Cushman, 238 Mass. 62 , 65, and is therefore governed respecting its interpretation by the law of that State. Montreal Cotton & Wool Waste Co. Ltd. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 261 Mass. 385 , 390. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial