Padden v. Marsh
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Winneshiek District Oourt. The plaintiff purchased of the defendant a Marsh Harvester, and took from him a written warranty of it. This action is brought to recover the amount paid therefor, with interest, alleging a breach of the written warranty.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Winneshiek District Oourt. The plaintiff purchased of the defendant a Marsh Harvester, and took from him a written warranty of it. This action is brought to recover the amount paid therefor, with interest, alleging a breach of the written warranty. The defendant denies the breach alleged, and avers that, by the terms of the warranty, if it was found that the harvester did not comply with it, the harvester was to be returned by plaintiff to Decorah, free of charge; and also averred that it had not been so returned. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for…
1Opinion of the CourtCole, J.
After the evidence was closed the court gave to the jury, among others, the following instruction. “ If you find, from the evidence, that the defendant notified plaintiff that the defendant would not receive the machine back, in case the same was delivered at Decorah, this will be sufficient execuse, on the part of plaintiff, for a failure to so deliver the same.” The giving of this instruction is assigned as error. The jury, among other special findings, found that “ the plaintiff offered to return the machine to Decorah, and the defendant declared that he would not receive it at all; ” and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Williams v. Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Bomberger, Wright & Co. v. GrienerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
3Cited by5 opinions
- Laird v. ColeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
- Sycamore Marsh Harvester Co. v. GrundradNebraska Supreme Court · 1884
- Palmer v. Reeves & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909
- Berkey v. E. Lefebure & SonsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Emerson-Brantingham Implement Co. v. MillerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1932