The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-01-25
INTERESTING CASE sETTED.
Suit for Damages from Shutting Up OF
Folding Bed.

a Folding BED.
Law Court Holds the sellers of the Bed
Are Not Liable-The Courts Opinion
The case of Agnes White VS.. George
H. Cakes ct al, which was tried In the
Supreme Court in Bangor year ago
and was reported to the full penoh Tor
decision, has just been settled by de-
cision wholly favorable to the defend-
ants, Cakes & Chandler, furniture DEAL
ers of Bangor. The case arose from the
sale of a folding bed, which. later, COL
lapsed with disastrous results to the &C.
oupants, one of whom was seriously hurt
The bed was purchased in June, 1873,
and was put into a lodging house on
Washington street, Bangor. On oct. 4th
of the same year, while Frank White and
his wife were sleeping in the bed, part
of it broke and it shut up on the occu-
pants, bruising Mrs. White severely
and breaking her husbands spine SO that
he became an habitual cripple.
The owner of the bed, Mrs. Agnes
White, who conducted the lodging house,
and who was sister of the injured
man, accordingly brought suit against
the firm who sold her the bed in the sum
of S., 600; she claimed that she spent a
large sum of money in nursing the in
jured man and for his medical attend
ance. Her counsel. P H. Gillin, ESQ.,,
claimed liability on the part of the per
sons selling the bed, whose sale was TAX
en- as guarantee of its integrity and
good condition. The case was rather a
long one and it was. ssent to the law
court, from which the following decision,
favorable in every particular to the de-
PENDANTS and very interesting in points
OF law, has just issued:
The defendants. being dealers in fur
uiture and not manufacturers, sold a
folding bed to the plaintiff without ex-
press warranty OF any kind. The bed
proved dangerous to the persons using it,
not from detective parts, but from faulty
design. 1t proved to be trap, suited to
crush its occupants by shutting up like
a jackknife when slept upon. The
weight of its occupants, if sufficient to
overcome the gravity of the upright head
piece, would "trip that forward and the
bed collapse. This bed did so, injuring
a man sleeping in it so that he became
partially paralyzed. The defendants had
no knowledge of this danger. If. there
fore, the plaintiff may recover in this
case it must be from an implied warranty
against the dangers of it's contrivanoe.
The mechanism of this bed could be
observed by the purchaser as well as by
tie vendor. Neither. unless skilled in
mechanics. would be likely to discover
the dangers of it unaided by any object
lesson. The hinge, or flexible joint. upon
which the bed hung was a contrivance of
folding iron straps that really brought
the point of support much farther front
at the head than they seem to, thereby
overcoming the gravity of the headpiece
and tending to pitch it forward. The
bed when sufficiently loaded, would bring
the centre of gravity of the upright head
piece outside its base, or so nearly so,
especially when the castors were turned
under. that any unusual disturbance
might work that result.
In the sale of chattels by the manu-
facturef for specific uses IN implied war
ranty arises that the article is fit for the
use intended. In the sale of chattels
without express warranty, without fraud.
caveat emptor applies, and there is no
applied warranty. If the sale be by de-
scription, without opportunity for in
spection, the description must be met.
The sale of this bed was with full OPP
portunity of inspection. 1t was shown
to the purchaser, and the terms of the
sale were put in writing She, therefore
took no implied warranty, or an equiva-
lent right, unless facts were concealed
from her that made the transaction
fraudulent. No concealInent is shown.
1t does not appear that the defendants
knew of the dangerous continuance that
operated the bed. They deny such knowl-
edge. But it is said that. after the sale,
the bed broke down, that the defendants
were called upon to take it back and that
they said they would fix it and warrant
it all right. One of the ironstraps had
broken, and the defenants put on a new
one The defendants were neither bound
to repair the bed or take it back. They
gratuitously repaired it, and any war
Ianty they might have then made would
have been without consideration and not
binding. But the conversation testified
to does not amount to a warranty of it's
safety in use. At most, it can only be
considered An assurance that its mechan-
ism had been made sound. lie does not
appear that they were then informed Of
any inherent danger in it's use from
faulty continuance. Had they besn aware
of this, and concealed the danger and al
lowed the plaintiff to further use the bed
when they knew of its dangerous char
acter, other considerations would arise
IlOG lldlefldl u6kt3 1ucr6 lS uOs phase Oh
the case as presented that can cast any
liability upon the defendants.
If the plaintiff was allowed to amend
by inserting count for the purchase
money paid the amendment could do
the plaintiff no good. The bed was bar
gained on installihepts. The plaintiff
says that, after the shocking disaster
with the led, the defendants demanded
payment of money overdue which being
refused they took the bed. The defend
ants deny the demand, but say that they
took the bed by plaintiffs consent. In
either case under the terms of sale, they
might do so. They have both part pay
ment and the bed. That was their legal
right. and more generous course cannot
be demanded by law. Judgment for de-
PENDANTS.
Col. Jasper Hutchins was defendants
counsel.
A Correction.
We ara plaaSad to inform the MANY