Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-03-19
GUARANTEE STOOD.
IMPORTANT FERTrIizEn CASE DE-
cIDEp IN TUE SUPREME COURT
WHEN An ACCOUNT CAN BE ORDERED
Dccree Of Norfolk Court Reversed
I'm Wharfage conference.-the
of-PoIicc Sustained =. Iptercxtinr
VIII Suit.

cisIou-day of the March term, no opinions
having been submitted on Thursday oc
last week. and IL was one OF the busiest
DAYS m this respect that The court has
experienced in years.
The case OF Reese & Co. against Bates.
from The Circuit Court Of Norfolk coun-
tv was one OF the most important de-
citcd The opinion was by Judge Keith.
and the case involved a fertilizer trans
action between the plaintiff and the de-
fsraaut Reese q CO. instituted suit
acanst Bates for the sum Of $l,MSl7. due
tr.m upou certain notes To this action
tho defendant pleaded nil debit. and teu-
s,rel two special pleas. TO which the
rI.uuas objected but the court per-
r.rtcl thc pleas 10 Zoe filed. and its action
.r his respect constituted the first as
..erment of error. Certain exceptions
were also taken by the plaintiffs during
.1e process 81 tho trial TIE iury fouid
verdict for defendant upor hts spe-
.ll pleas for SO ana ;hcse was mo-
.an to set th!5 aside. which Was Over
Ilta.
The defendant Bates. 8 twick-farmer,
purchased certain euano from the plain
ms which Was represented, guar0n-
..eI and warranted TO he as good IS
.rr other iu the market: ard the deiGud-
..t relying on and trusting 10 said rep
r.-.rtatiou. guarantee, and warranty,
MAS induced thereby TO buy OF the plain
tIs the said guanO, and at tie puce
mentioned in said declaration, and 70
l. the same in the cultivation OF his
.ro,s az potatoes, beans, cabbage, ana
other vegetables. And the defendant
Saws he used and applied the guano 70
bis crops. and cultivated them i'm q nus
IrI-li1e manner. and that his crops
we're almost entire failures and they
showed and derived DO advantage what
ever from the use ana application of
said guano." lie asserts that the guar
.-tee and warranty were false, and that
Do reason OF this he suffered damage 70
tre extent OF $3.50. This constituted
Plea No 1, and Plea 70. 2 was the same
tr eject. except that in the latter Il
was contended that tho representations
were made fraudulentyl with intent to
.ivc
The contention OF the plaintiffs was
that the pleading Of the defendant was
1.i and that the triai-court erred in
uniting certain testimony. The effect
.f what WAS claimed by the plaintiffs
was that the agent who sold the guanO
was not authorized 10 make such "a guar
.atee as ne made. but the court holds
that. cas- "a general rule. the agent has
mower TO do whatever Is usual--to enter
into such express stpulations as are
usual and customary in effecting such
-aIes." etc CHerriug US. Skaggs g.
NaD Other authorities are referred TO
bearing out this position.
There was objection on the parf Of
he plaintiffs 10 tho fourth instruction
Of the trial court which dealt with
what constitutes a warranty. To tins
the Court of Appeals says: AS we
have seen IN discussing Bill Of Excep-
lions No. 1. there are warranties which
a general agent may make. They are
-,ch as are usual 10 the business IN
which he is engaged. There are other
.varrapties which he may not make. IN
less the usage Of the market IN Which
na is transacting business is that agents
may make the particular warranty IN
question Applying this rule 10 inc case
before us the principal residing IN Bal
timore and employing AZ agen " Nor
fofl- IN sell fertilizers there, tho con-
tract of sale must be taken 10 have
beer made with all the Incidents OF
. ,ortract entered into in Norfolk Had
the warranty i'm the case been n usual
one We think the instruction Woulo nave
correctly propounded the law Du' me
,rorrantv before US is of an unusual
,.+.r and one which was nor in
It.
,,T.,t TO the authority OF simpson ~
,,e,e~ol agent to sell. unless DIS
,-er as such was enlarged by a usage
r The Norfollo market, which en-
-o,gered him 10 give such q dtiTi..S.
Instruction No 4, therefore, shou!u no
..rr predicted. as were me -
-,.tio,e moon the power or th- astHl
sind hts principal. snd especia'y III
t,,,I7 have been loft to the july 10
49,, she evidence whether ire uSdhc
$50 ~ Norfolk was such ~ is
Incl I'm the special plea or the de-
f-ulant." .5 20. Justice
10 the warranty ~ qoe71o.., ,,oi,,r-
.r.lrdirg says: For the error pC.ll.
.,, i1 fhe fourth instruction SiVen
~ ro,nest Of the defendant we
80 or,in,on that the judgment 81 'no
r.re,.it court should be reversed
,,.. v.lline. verdict sustained
- very interesting case rom 'ue
- Cbancerv Court OF the cry 81
~" mat OF Bolton aud o'l-ls
't ve1inas John T. Bolton Aicu -
os't--r-sio, nj The Board Of Pouce 80
--,se,o,ers OF Norfolk, dpec'eu -,
Tredeu Chief ct Ponce o. '"'' NJ
e., arrest ex-Ch.ei~of-Polce " co. 200,
lines III seen after AuA''l - ,,,,.,ipy
,re streets I'm the uuitcim o, anu W,.Ut,o..
.t- bsdge OF captain of police e'l" ~
..- .rrse+ad and discharged upon n"y,'
,,., ,,rora-aines. lie then suep "oi
con ANA Verdier fOr datcAseS' gu -,
,r,le5 81 900 From this ao appear W.
Zen and the judgment OF TIE NV
court is affirmed. .,ronlained
After dealing with the err t[,.esls
o. executions, &c. the Court OF 49,
49,. "The act (wcaring the uhilO, pa.
AZ f,rbidden Is not an offence asa'i'es
~r. commonwealth. IL IS Noia'.pN ~.
it,, ordinsnce. which the state li w
t.rt,r which IL conferred upon lor Cl's
.+t,~i,,s a. 10 punish by the impos,'iVu
f m. NOT exceeding $lV' ana "h'-
n,, civ NV MS ordinance plnisneS
,,,,os,tiou of "a fine of not less th"A -
lr ,oor. than so The charter IS 'nO
a,tboritv 10 the city 10 pass '"o
,,.,c. and the ordinancc De- the eA.0".'
20 .t. roUer conferred boy the chdi.y.'
a., r.,,,irs always. however, g vioi'''O''
~ tbe police regulations or the cry
,,ot ID crime OF any degree asa'N''
,,e,ce and dignity Of the COmmohN 49,.
d, ie well settled that unless W" po"1'
t.,teo, (ae was doucl be pielhN
Given. IL does not eNisl' ana "h'H ~.
,,o,e II can be exercised. there must DC
t,,dtoial entertainment by u competent
,.fbupai or magistrate OF tho su.st OF '"o
~t, accused / Dillon Oh MunWlpa'
s,Crnorafions. fourth edition section "''
Afer passiug upon the several lnstIuc-
49, eonnlained Of by the cefen -anlf'
tha court goes on 20 say; "Iht eNiuv"'
to,,s NAT the defendant in error, VINO
hsd been captain Of police in the CITY "a
~orfolk. whose term Of once mao exp ~
biit who honestly believed ihal ms o"iO'''
no was extended by law untli MS 'u
,rssor had qualified, appeared upon "s
~ a