Troy Laundry Co. v. Henry

Citations

• 23 Or. 232
• 31 P. 484
• 1892 Ore. LEXIS 134

Syllabus

<p>Sale — Implied Warranty. — An implied warranty of an article will not extend beyond the article itself to other articles or appliances connected therewith, even though included in the same order and bought at the same time; the implication is that the article sold is reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was designed, and if this article is broken, or fails to accomplish its purpose, through the defect or inappropriateness of other articles with which it is used, the warranty is not broken.</p> <p>Warranty — Evidence. — Where a written order was in this form, “1 18-roll body ironer, $175.00; 1 No. 26 extractor, $200.00; 1 pressure blower, $15.00 ; shaft, 1% in.; body ironer to run at 150; shaft for extractor, 134, run 150, and pulleys” (for which $7.30 were charged); it was held to be a several order, and that each article separately was impliedly suitable for its intended use; but the pulleys were not part of the ext. .utor, and the implied warranty of one did not extend to the other; hence in a suit on a note for the extractor and pulleys, where the defense was a breach of warranty on the extractor, evidence of defects in the pulleys was not competent.</p> <p>Pleading ,— Answer. — The object of an answer is to plainly notify the court and the opposite party of the facts relied upon as a defense, so that the defendant may be prepared to meet them if he can. The testimony must then be confined to the allegations. Knahtla v. Oregon Short Line My. Go., 21 Or. 142 (27 Pac. Rep. 91), approved.</p>