Case ID: ohio-law-abs_2/html/0396-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MAUCK, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 368
    MASON v. HAYSLETT
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga County
    No. 4924.
    Decided March 20, 1924
    1063. SALES — Not breach of implied warranty if use of machine sold for regulating gas is prohibited by Gas Co., though suited for that purpose.
    Attorneys — Turney & Sipe, for Mason; R. L. Carr, for Hayslett; all of Cleveland.
   MAUCK, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Action by Mason to recover money paid on a preorganization subscription to the capital stock of a subsequently formed Rotary Machine and Engineering Co., on the ground that the preorganization agreement was unlawful. The action was also to recover for a gas regulating machine which Mason bought but later discovered its use was prohibited by the Gas Co. He claimed that there was an implied warranty that the machine was fit for the purpose for which it Was to be used. A demurrer was sustained to the petition; In affirming the judgment, the Court of Appeals held:

1. No section of the Securities Act or other statute has been pointed out which is applicable to the preorganization agreement.

2. The gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint is not that the machine failed to function; in fact it is well suited; to that purpose, but that the Gas Co. prohibited the use of it. There was no implied warranty that went beyond the manufacture of the article itself and the seller is not liable because a third person deprived the purchaser of the contemplated benefits.