Rollins Engine Co. v. Eastern Forge Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, for the breach of an implied contract to manufacture upon the plaintiffs’ order a safe and proper piston rod for an ■engine. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiffs. Transferred from the September term, 1903, of the' superior court by Wallace, C. J. The plaintiffs are engaged in manufacturing engines at Nashua, and the defendants in making forgings at the same place.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for the breach of an implied contract to manufacture upon the plaintiffs’ order a safe and proper piston rod for an ■engine. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiffs. Transferred from the September term, 1903, of the' superior court by Wallace, C. J. The plaintiffs are engaged in manufacturing engines at Nashua, and the defendants in making forgings at the same place. In July, 1902, the defendants received from the plaintiffs a written order for “ one steel piston rod as per enclosed blue print, 21x42.” The blue print contained a drawing of the desired rod with the dimensions…
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
The theory of the plaintiffs upon which the case was tried and submitted to the jury cannot be sustained. The contract was in writing. A warranty not expressed or implied from the terms used cannot be added by implication of law or parol proof. Whitmore v. Iron Co., 2 Allen 52, 58; Goulds v. Brophy, 42 Minn. 109. The written order which was the basis of the contract was for a steel piston rod of specified dimensions. The plaintiffs were engaged in the manufacture and sale of steam-engines at Nashua, and the defendants in the making of forgings at the same place. It is not suggested that the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Kellogg Bridge Co. v. HamiltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Hoe v. . SanbornNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Carleton v. . Lombard, Ayres Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- State ex rel. Peters v. McCollisterOhio Supreme Court · 1841
- Goulds v. BrophySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stephan v. Sears Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
- American Player Piano Co. v. American Pneumatic Action Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Theobald v. ShepardSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
- Tamkin v. Nelson-Dowling Coal Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925