Fox v. Stockton Combined Harvester & Agricultural Works

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County, and from an order denying a new trial.

The action was brought by John Fox and J. C. Tilton, who alleged that they were jointly interested as farmers in the cultivation of large tracts of land in the county of Stanislaus for the raising of grain, to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract made by them in June, 1884, with the corporation defendant, acting through L. U. Shippee as its duly authorized agent, to manufacture and sell to them two twelve-foot Shippee combined harvesters, with Shippee and Grattan improvements, at the agreed price of three thousand six hundred dollars, and that the defendant represented, warranted, and guaranteed that each of said harvesters would do good and satisfactory work in the harvesting, cutting, and saving of grain; that they would harvest the grain at a greatly reduced expense; that they would do good and satisfactory work in the harvest-field, cutting from twenty to forty acres of grain per day, and saving all the grain cut; and that said machines were reasonably fit for the purpose of harvesting and thrashing grain, and would do good and satisfactory work in the grain-field, and were entirely free from any latent defects whatever; and that the purchase of the said harvesters was thereby induced, plaintiffs acting and relying thereupon in the said purchase of and in accepting and paying for said machines. The complaint further alleged that said machines were ordered on the joint account of plaintiffs, and for their joint use and benefit, and were paid for out of their joint funds, and that the damage suffered by them was damage to the joint property of plaintiffs; that the machines wholly failed to do good or satisfactory work, or any work of value, though repeated trials were made thereof during the greater part of the harvest season of 1884; and that, in the endeavors of plaintiffs to make the machines operate satisfactorily, and to do and perform the work defendant contracted, guaranteed, and warranted they should do and perform, plaintiffs expended large sums of mo„ney, and lost a great amount of valuable time in attempting the harvesting, cutting, and saving of their grain, and also lost and had destroyed by said machines a large amount of grain, to the damage of plaintiffs in the sum of eight thousand dollars, or thereabouts. Plaintiffs further alleged that they returned the harvesters to defendant immediately after becoming fully satisfied that they were not capable of doing good or satisfactory work in the harvesting of grain, and demanded a return of the purchase-money, and interest, and the payment of the further sum of three thousand dollars damages sustained, which defendant refused to ¡jay. The complaint prayed judgment for eleven thousand six hundred dollars damages alleged. The answer claimed that the defendant’s representation was only to the effect that the machines would do good work in the harvest-fields when properly used; and denied that they were properly used by plaintiffs, or that plaintiffs used sufficient endeavors to make them do good work, or that they were improperly constructed, or inadequate or unadapted to do good work, or that the machines were returned. Defendant denied that the machines were ordered by plaintiffs on their joint account, or for their joint use, or were paid for out of joint funds, and alleged that each plaintiff contracted separately for one harvester, as shown by exhibits A and B, attached to the answer, one of which was signed by the plaintiff John Fox, named therein as party of the second part, and the other by the plaintiff J. C. Tilton, named therein as party of the second part. Each exhibit contained the following clause: “The party of the first part hereby agrees to manufacture, have ready for delivery, and deliver at the place of their manufactory in said county of San Joaquin, on the first day of June, 1884, to said party of the second part, one twelve-foot Shippee combined harvester, with Shippee and Grattan improvements, warranted to do good work, for the sum of eighteen hundred dollars, gold coin of the United States.” The jury found a verdict for plaintiffs in the sum of six thousand dollars.