Cleveland Linseed Oil Co. v. A. F. Buchanan & Sons

Citations

• 120 F. 906
• 57 C.C.A. 498
• 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4552

Syllabus

<p>>L Sale — Implied Warranty of Fitness — Pleading.</p> <p>Allegations in a complaint that “defendant contracted and agreed to deliver to the plaintiff * * * 0ne tank car of well-settled new process linseed oil * * * for use in its business of manufacturing table and enameled oilcloth, and which defendant well knew was to be used in its said business and to manufacture table and enameled oilcloths,” are sufficient to raise and support an implied warranty of fitness in a sale by a manufacturer for a particular purpose.</p> <p>■3. Same — Manufactured Articles.</p> <p>Plaintiff was engaged in the manufacture of oilcloths in which a special quality of linseed oil was required. Defendant was a manufacturer of oil, and its agent called on plaintiff, and represented that it was using a new process, by which a superior article of oil for plaintiff’s use was produced. They tested a sample, which proved fit for plaintiff’s use. Defendant’s agent promised that if plaintiff would give an order he would see that the right kind of oil was furnished for its use, and thereafter plaintiff purchased large quantities, which were satisfactory in use. At one time plaintiff gave an order for two tank cars of the same oil as it had before. One ear was received and emptied into plaintiff’s tanks and used. It proved of inferior quality, not fit for such use, and a large loss resulted. Held, that there was an implied warranty by defendant that such oil was of the same quality as that previously furnished plaintiff, and fit for the purpose for which defendant knew it was to be used.</p> <p>A Same — Action for Breach of Warranty — Measure of Damages.</p> <p>In an action for breach of such warranty, in which it was found that plaintiff was not negligent in using the oil in reliance thereon, the measure of damages was the loss actually sustained by reason of such use, and to enable the jury to determine the amount evidence was admissible showing that goods sold by plaintiff were returned by cus