The Pacific Reporter Volume 72 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 Excerpt: ...specifying what particular kind of manure he wanted, and the defendant had accordingly furnished a-n article which, instead of producing such effects, proved to be entirely worthless, there would be good ground for the proposition that there was an implied warranty from which liability would arise. But where a specific article is ordered and furnished, the law is well settled that, although the purchaser states the purpose to which he intends to apply it, there is no implied warranty on the part of the vendor that it is suitable for the purpose; and he will not, in the absence of fraud, or an express warranty, be held liable, however unlit and defective it may turn out to be." See, also, Deming v. Foster, 42 N. H. 165; Bartlett v. Hoppack et al., 34 N. Y. 118, 88 Am. Dec. 428; McDonough v. Jolly Bros., 165 Pa. 542, 30 Atl. 1048; Wisconsin Red Pressed-Brick Co. v. Hood, 54 Minn. 543, 56 N. W. 105; McQuaid v. Ross and Another. 85 Wis. 492. 55 N. W. 705, 22 h. R. A. 187, 39 Am. St. Rep. 864. In the present case the purchaser did not apply to the vendors for the talisman of a successful insurance business, or for a magic weapon or device with which to confound And rout his rivals and competitors, nor did he depend upon them to furnish him with such a precious piece of property. He simply bought a fire insurance business as it then stood, including the records pertaining thereto as they then presented themselves. The proposition was not, "Sell me a list of expirations known to no other living person." it simply was, "Sell me this list now open before us." The case, therefore, falls within the principle of Lukens v. Freiund, 27 Kan. 664, 51 Am. Rep. 42 ). in which a vendor hud on hand an article which he desired to sell. The purchaser, fi...