Mones v. Imperial Bottling Works, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Mones v. Imperial Bottling Works, Inc.

185 A. 483, 14 N.J. Misc. 369, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 332

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 4, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 A. 483 (Mones v. Imperial Bottling Works, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mones v. Imperial Bottling Works, Inc., 185 A. 483, 14 N.J. Misc. 369, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 332 (N.J. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sued and had judgment for the price of a quantity of magnesia sold to the defendant for resale. The Uniform Sales act of this state (4 Comp. Stat., p. 4651, § 2, ¶ 15), provides that: “Where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not) there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.” The law of Pennsylvania is identical. 55 Corp. Jur. 45, note 24.

The proofs indicate that the magnesia in question was sold by description and not by trade name and did not comply with the formula required by the United States pharmacopoeia, since the standard therein stated was fifty-six per cent., whereas the magnesia in question was but approximately forty per cent.

Defendant was convicted of the violation of the Food and Drugs act of this state, by reason of the sale of part of the drugs for which the plaintiff had recovery. It seems, therefore, that the goods did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability. Certainly, a dealer who purchases for resale cannot be said to be without warranty, if the goods which he purchases cannot be resold without violating the law of this state. It seems equally clear that a drug of less strength than required by law was adulterated even though not harmful.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sued and had judgment for the price of a quantity of magnesia sold to the defendant for resale. The Uniform Sales act of this state (4 Comp. Stat., p. 4651, § 2, ¶ 15), provides that: “Where the goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he be the grower or manufacturer or not) there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.” The law of Pennsylvania is identical. 55 Corp. Jur. 45, note 24.

The proofs indicate that the magnesia in question was sold by description and not by trade name and did not comply with the formula required by the United States pharmacopoeia, since the standard therein stated was fifty-six per cent., whereas the magnesia in question was but approximately forty per cent.

Defendant was convicted of the violation of the Food and Drugs act of this state, by reason of the sale of part of the drugs for which the plaintiff had recovery. It seems, therefore, that the goods did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability. Certainly, a dealer who purchases for resale cannot be said to be without warranty, if the goods which he purchases cannot be resold without violating the law of this state. It seems equally clear that a drug of less strength than required by law was adulterated even though not harmful.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 A. 483, 14 N.J. Misc. 369, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mones-v-imperial-bottling-works-inc-nj-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack