Grafton-Stamps Drug Co. v. Williams

62 So. 273, 105 Miss. 296
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 62 So. 273 (Grafton-Stamps Drug Co. v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grafton-Stamps Drug Co. v. Williams, 62 So. 273, 105 Miss. 296 (Mich. 1913).

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

A sale of seed by name raises an implied warranty that it is true to name; and the fact that the buyer inspected the seed before purchasing is immaterial, when its character cannot ordinarily be ascertained by any reasonable inspection. Note to Leonard v. Crary Canning Co., 37 L. R. A., N. S. 79, 35 Cyc. 409-411, 30 Ency. of Law, 2d Ed., 157, par. 7, Id. 159, par. 1 of subdivision XI, Id. 612, par. 5.

That the person from whom the seller had himself purchased • the seed declined to warrant to him that it was true to name is immaterial, although this fact was known to the last purchaser; his warranty not being in any wise dependent upon the existence vel non of a warranty to the person from whom he himself purchased. At most, such a fact is only a circumstance, to be considered along with other evidence, if such there be, indicating that the last sale was made upon an express or implied agreement that no such warranty should result therefrom.

Where seed is sold with warranty that it is true to name, the measure of damages for a breach thereof, when it is actually sown and produces a crop, not harmful to the land, but of less value than would have been produced, had the warranty not been broken, is the value of the crop, such as the seed was warranted to produce, and would ordinarily have produced* less the value of the crop actually raised from the seed purchased.

The court below having tried this cause in accordance with the foregoing views, its judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rizzo v. Jordan Wholesale Co.
214 So. 2d 604 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1968)
Sokoloski v. Splann
40 N.E.2d 874 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1942)
West Coast Lumber Co. v. Wernicke
188 So. 357 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Lollar v. Jones
157 So. 209 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Hobdy v. Siddens
248 S.W. 505 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1923)
Jolly v. C. E. Blackwell & Co.
211 P. 748 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)
Winter-Loeb Grocery Co. v. Boykin
82 So. 437 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Kefauver v. Price
206 S.W. 664 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1918)
E. P. Moorhead v. Minneapolis Seed Co.
165 N.W. 484 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 So. 273, 105 Miss. 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grafton-stamps-drug-co-v-williams-miss-1913.