Skinner v. Kerwin Ornamental Glass Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. (1) The court erred in rejecting appellant’s expert evidence tending-to show (a) what would he a suitable exhaust apparatus for the purpose of removing dust from the appellant’s sand-blast room; (h) the reasons why respondent’s fan and piping were unfit for such purpose; and (c) the proper and usual construction of a fan, piping and apparatus for such purpose.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. Jesse A. McDonald, Judge. (1) The court erred in rejecting appellant’s expert evidence tending-to show (a) what would he a suitable exhaust apparatus for the purpose of removing dust from the appellant’s sand-blast room; (h) the reasons why respondent’s fan and piping were unfit for such purpose; and (c) the proper and usual construction of a fan, piping and apparatus for such purpose. Rogers on Expert Testimony, sec. 37; Lawson on Expert and Opinion Evidence (2 Ed.), p. 269; Barnes v. Heath, 58 N. H. 196; Lindley v. Railroad, 36 Minn. 539;…
1Opinion of the CourtReyburn, J.
(after stating the facts as above).— 1. If appellant purchased the fan by selecting it from the catalogue exhibited to him, without relying on the judgment of respondent, and the latter furnished the article designated, then manifestly there was no room for any implied warranty, but from the proof introduced and tendered by appellant, the contract of sale imported a warranty by legal implication, that the fan and appurtenances would be fitted for the use, for which they were required and applied, and would perform the work, for which they were designed, of expelling' the dust, caused by the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Comings v. LeedySupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- St. Louis Brewing Ass'n v. McEnroeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Gavisk v. Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Monahan v. Kansas City Clay & Coal Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1894
- Armstrong, Gilbert & Co. v. Johnson Tobacco Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Boulware v. Victor Automobile Manufacturing Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- Progressive Finance and Realty Co. v. StempelMissouri Court of Appeals · 1936
- Lindsborg Milling & Elevator Co. v. DanzeroMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915
- Nettograph MacH. Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Price Brothers Lithographic Co. v. American Pack. Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1964
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.