Miller v. James Smith Woolen Machinery Co.

Citations

• 220 Pa. 181
• 69 A. 598
• 1908 Pa. LEXIS 745

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Warranty—Breach of warranty — Intention—Burden of proof —Evidence.</p> <p>Where in an action to recover the price of a machine built to order and warranted to do a particular work, the defendant sets up a breach of warranty, the burden is upon him to establish the breach. In such a case the defendant is entitled to have his defense submitted to a jury, where he shows by several witnesses that the machine did not do the work it was warranted to do and that it failed to do so by reason of its being constructed upon a wrong principle, rather than because of any defect in its construction.</p> <p>Where in such a case plaintiff alleges performance of the contract, he cannot at the trial properly or consistently set up any facts by way of excuse of performance.</p> <p>Where a contractor has furnished a machine capable of doing the work which it is warranted to do, the purchaser cannot defeat an action for the recovery of the price of the machine by showing that the contractor in the -letter which set forth the terms of the contract made certain false statements as to his experience in manufacturing machines of the type in question.</p> <p>Practice, C. P. — Trial—Charge—Points—Neglect to answer points.</p> <p>The refusal of a trial judge to answer specific points presented to him, is not error if it appears that the questions presented by the points were substantially answered in the general charge.</p>