The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-07-08
Important Case with Regard TO the
Manufacture of TNIuccO Boxes.

ID. IuntS d Co., manufacturers 81 tobacco
in the city of Uanvllc. brought suit iii the
Hastings Court against }. :. Grr>t, Il mi,nll-
t;lrtlrcr ot tobacco boxes, 10 recover dam
ages for the loss they Sustained. rs they al
legged, Ivy certain boxes purchased OF said
Gcr>t being made of uil>casoncd timber.
This ,rl,lS. being tried ut this term of the
Hastings Court. il was admitted by both
parties that D. Jones & Co. merely gave IN
order for tobacco boxes without any further
understanding of the matter. 1t WAS proved
ON trial that the timhcr of which the boxes
were made had been sawed from twelve to
eighteen months; that every prccution WAS
taken to dry it, and keep it so; and the mall
,,tlciufcr aud his foreman both stated posi-
lively that the timber was seasoned. On the
other hand it WAS proved that certain lots of
tobacco which were put UP in the boxes
purchased hy the defendant were injured,
and. in the opinion of the witnesses, by the
unscasonrd or wet timber.
The counsel for the plaintiffs disclaiincd
any intention of charging fraud upon the
defendant. They relied upon the implied
warranty. which they contended the law pre-
sllmcd in such cases, that the boxes were
suited to the purpose for which they were
to be used.
The counsel for the defendants denied that
there was an implied warranty, contendng
that the doctrine of c0Uedt c1ptor applied
i'll full force in this case.
Many authorities were quoted on both
sides. The law Of the case turned upon the
difference between giving IN order fora Ger
tain defined article and III underlined article.
We think it was agreed by both sides That il
the plaintiffs had gone to the factory and
selected Il certain parcel OF boxes that they
would have taken them on their own reSron-
SibiIty, even though the manufacturer had
stated they were suitable Tor przlnS tobacco;
but inasmllcIl us they gave III order merely
for tobacco boxes, :hc whole responsibility
was thrown upon the manufacturer.
The following Instructions were given to
the jury by Judge FlolTnoy:
"Tlc court lStructs the Jury that II they
believe from the evidence that the plaintiffs.
being manufacturers of tobacco, ordered and
purchased from the defendant, being Il mall
llfuctllrer of tobacco boxes, and paid him
therefor, q number of tobacco boxes, for the
purpose of putting and priziDS therein their
tobicco, making only general order for
tobacco boxes, and 10 further specifications
therein, and that the defendant was informed
of the purpose for which such boxes were
intended to bc Used by the plaintiffs, then
the defendants undertaking to furnish to.
hacco boxes under such general order is
held to implied warranty That the boxes
furnished were reasonably ttand suited to the
purpose for which they were intended. and
the measure of damageis to be asccrtained
by the amount OF loss they shall believe was
sustained by the plaintiffs in the use of said
boxes for the purpose for which they were
manufactured"
The jury took tho case, giving it 4 tho
rough consideration, but were unable to
agree either upon the law or the material
tact-namely, whether the tobacco was IN
jllred by unseasoned timber or some other
auseafter it LETT the factory. Some thought
there was no implied warranty, and tiat tiie
manufacturer ought to examine fol. huhseii
othega that there was IN implied oblisatlen 70