Davis, Gould & Co. v. Danforth & Co.
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Deeatur District Court. Plaintiffs brought this action to recover a balance alleged to be due tbem for certain carriages and wagons sold by them to defendants. Defendants admitted the sale and delivery to them of the property described in the petition, but as a counter-claim they alleged that the property was sold by plaintiff witli a warranty of its quality, and that there was a failure of such warranty, whereby they were damaged in a large amount.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Deeatur District Court. Plaintiffs brought this action to recover a balance alleged to be due tbem for certain carriages and wagons sold by them to defendants. Defendants admitted the sale and delivery to them of the property described in the petition, but as a counter-claim they alleged that the property was sold by plaintiff witli a warranty of its quality, and that there was a failure of such warranty, whereby they were damaged in a large amount. Defendants recovered on tlieir counter-claim, and plaintiff appeals.
1Dissent
Adams, J\,
dissenting. I am not able to see how a recovery can properly be had upon the alleged warranty. The plaintiffs never saw nor heard of the warranty, and certainly did not make it, unless through the alleged agent; but he did not make any warranty. lie did not have the power to warrant, and did not claim to have. He did not even have the power to make a sale. He had no power, except to take orders, and the defendants had no reason to suppose that he hack If they desired goods different from those specified'in the catalogue, or a different warranty, they should have so *606provided in their…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Eadie, Guilford & Co. v. AshbaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1876
- Baudouine v. GrimesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884