Gammar v. Borgain
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Butler District Court. The petition sets out tbat on the 3d of June, 1869, defendant made his order, in writing, for the shipment to him by rail to Cedar Falls, by the 1st of July following, a Marsh harvester, for which he was to pay, etc., provided it answered the warranty indorsed on said order. If it did not answer this warranty, after notice and trial, it was to be returned to Gedar Falls free of charge.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Butler District Court. The petition sets out tbat on the 3d of June, 1869, defendant made his order, in writing, for the shipment to him by rail to Cedar Falls, by the 1st of July following, a Marsh harvester, for which he was to pay, etc., provided it answered the warranty indorsed on said order. If it did not answer this warranty, after notice and trial, it was to be returned to Gedar Falls free of charge. The warranty was that the harvester was well made, of good material, not liable to get out of order when properly used, to be a good grain cutting machine, upon which two…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
I. A material question on the trial of the cause was, whether the alleged failure of the machine to answer the warranty was the fault of the implement or defendant. To this point the testimony was largely directed. One point made on this appeal involves the correctness of the court’s action in rejecting certain testimony offered by plaintiff upon this issue. Thus, they proposed to prove by several witnesses that they were acquainted with these harvesters; had used and owned them in 1867 and 1868, in the neighborhood of defendant’s residence-; regarded them as good grain cutting machines; that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bomberger, Wright & Co. v. GrienerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1865
3Cited by1 opinion
- McCormick & Bro. v. DunvilleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1873