McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Watson

Citations

• 5 S.D. 9
• 57 N.W. 945
• 1894 S.D. LEXIS 23

Syllabus

<p>1. Under the code of this state the seller of personal property does not, except as therein specifically provided, impliedly warrant the quality of the thing sold.</p> <p>2. An instruction to the jury that charging and receiving the full marketable price for a harvesting and binding machine imports a warranty by the seller that it will do as good work as other first class machines, is error.</p> <p>3. The note sued upon was one given in renewal of the last of several notes originally given on the purchase of the machine, and was given after the machine had been used two seasons. The court instructed the jury that, if they found “that the machine was not worth, at the time the . note was given, more than the defendant has already paid them, your verdict must be for the defendant.” Held, error. The question of consideration depended upon the value of the machine, not at the time the renewal note was gived, but at the time the machine was boug'ht.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the courc.</p>