Winelander v. Jones

• Decision Date: 14 May 1889
• Citation: 42 N.W. 333,77 Iowa 401
• Parties: WINELANDER ET AL. v. JONES.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

77 Iowa 401

42 N.W. 333

WINELANDER ET AL.

v.JONES.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 14, 1889.

Appeal from superior court of Keokuk, HENRY BANK, Jr., Judge.

This is an action to recover the price of a bill of umbrellas sold by plaintiffs to defendant. The cause was tried to the court, and judgment rendered in favor of defendant. The plaintiffs appeal.W. J. Roberts, for appellants.

W. B. Collins, for appellee.

ROBINSON, J.

The amount in controversy not exceeding $100, the trial judge certified to this court questions for its determination, in language as follows: “I, the undersigned, judge of the court aforesaid, do hereby certify that the determination of this cause involves a question of law upon which it is desirable to have the opinion of the supreme court. The question is: In January, 1887, defendant ordered by sample a bill of fourteen umbrellas from plaintiffs, which were to be billed of date April 1, 1887, to be paid for four months thereafter, with right of discount if paid before. Defendant received the umbrellas from the carrier on February 17, 1887; opened the package containing them; discovered they were inclosed separately in paper covers, when he claimed they should have been inclosed in cloth covers. He notified plaintiffs of this fact, and was furnished with the kind of covers desired. Making no further inspection of the umbrellas at this time, defendant put same away until there should be a demand therefor; there being no sale for such goods until about April 1st. Subsequently he sold three of the lot at various times, without inspection of the goods sent to him. On April 5 or 6, 1887, having occasion to make a further sale, defendant, on opening one of the umbrellas, discovered same was defective, in that the silk did not correspond with the sample shown at the time the order was made; that they were not the goods ordered, in that the silk was not of the quality of the goods ordered. On April 6, 1887, he shipped the remaining nine umbrellas to plaintiffs, and notified them he had done so because he claimed same did not correspond with the sample and the goods ordered, and because they were not of the quality of the goods ordered, and were not the goods ordered, and worthless. Plaintiffs refused to accept the returned umbrellas. (1) Had there been such an acceptance of the umbrellas by defendant that he had waived his right to return same? and (2) had defendant had a reasonable opportunity to inspect the umbrellas prior to April 5 or 6, 1887?”

1. The first question we are required to determine is the sufficiency of the certificate to give this court jurisdiction of the cause. It is insisted by appellee that the certificate is not sufficient, because it shows that there was a conflict in the evidence, and is a certificate of the conclusion of the court as to the facts found. The position of appellee would be well taken if the certificate required us to examine and determine the effect of the evidence. Chilton v. Railway Co., 72 Iowa, 690, 34 N. W. Rep. 473;Riddle v. Fletcher, 72 Iowa, 455, 34 N. W. Rep. 290;Hudson v. Railroad Co., 59 Iowa, 582, 13 N. W. Rep. 735. But it does not require that at our hands. It recites the ultimate facts which the evidence established, and upon which the questions certified depend. The accuracy and completeness of the statement of facts is not questioned. Ordinarily, where the facts are admitted, their effect is a matter of law,...