Phipps v. Consolidated Flour Mills Co.

Citations

• 113 Kan. 118
• 213 P. 637
• 1923 Kan. LEXIS 345

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COUKT.</p> <p>1. Sale — Flour—Sold Under Certain Brand — Breach of Implied Warranty— Competent Evidence. In. an action by the purchaser of a quantity of flour, sold by the manufacturer under a certain brand, for the recovery of the price paid for it, the issue being whether there was a breach of an implied warranty that it was of the grade and quality usually made and sold under that name, evidence of representations made by the seller’s agent at the time of sale as to the character of the flour is competent as tending to show the kind of flour indicated by the designation employed.</p> <p>2. Same. Where flour when received after a shipment of 17 days is found to have a bad odor and to be unfit for use, evidence that the sacks in which it came were in perfect condition and were not stained in any way has some tendency to show that when shipped it was in the same condition, and is sufficient to justify submitting to the jury the question whether such was the case.</p> <p>3. Same — Trial. Various trial rulings are held not to require a reversal.</p>