The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-10-17
VALVE CASE .
WAS REVERSED
SUPREME COURT HELD THAT
. LOWER COURT ERRED IN WITH
HOLDING TESTIMONY OF De.
PENDANT IN GOULD VALVE CO..
VS.. J.. RI. HERoLD,

The supreme court has reversed the
decision OF the district our for Cass
county in the case of the Gould Valve
Co. VS.. J.. Fl. Herold. The case in
volved payment for a valve which
Herold bought for his engine and
which he claimed vas defective. The
syllabus by the cour is as follows:
State OF North Dakota in supreme |
court. Gould Balance Valve Co., o |
sisting of M. II. Meigs, J. A. Gum, S..
B. Bowers, j.. B. Burton and l. c.
Deets, co-partners, plaintiffs and re-
~spondents, VS.. J. H. Heroid, defendant
and appellant.
Defendant purchased a valve, to at
tach to his engine, from the plaintiffs.
The contract made by him provided
that settlement by note or cash should
be made on delivery. This was fol-
lowed by the provision that the valve
was sold subject to the warranty fol-
lowing, which should be in effect only
after the above conditions were COM
piled with. hen followed the war
ranty; then a requirement that if it
did not perform in accordance with
the warranty written notice should be
given plaintiffs, stating wherein it
failed, and that the defendant should
give complete information by answer
ing all questions asked, and other
conditions to be complied with by de-
PENDANT, unnecessary here to note. Held
that the taking effect of the warranty
contained in the contract was con-
ditioned upon settlement being made
by cash or note. Held further thai
such settlement having been made
such warranty went into effect. Held
further that before defendant could
take any advantage Of a breach of the
warranty he was required to give the
notice and complete information by
substantially answering pertinent
questions asked.
2. Defendant used the valve two
days and found that it did not fulfill
the warranty. He then notified the
plaintiffs, giving them the particulars
| wherein it failed. Plaintiffs sent de-
PENDANT a list Of questions for answers
at least some Of which related to the
manner in which he had installed the
valve. Instead of answering the ques-
ions In detail he answered thai he
a installed it in exact accordance
with the directions which came with
1t. The questions and were
received in evidence, and upon an
lntlmatton. by the court an offer was
made to prove that defendants reply
to the questions answered them sub
~stantially. He had lost the directions
| IA III ~ PAONO L1dl ITO dLu HIS
engineer compared the questions with
the directions for the installation and
that they referred solely and specih-
cally to the of installing the
valve. He also offered to prove that
the plaintiffs made no effort, after re-
ceiving his answer, to remedy the de-
fects. The court, on objection, ex-
cluded evidence on these subjects,
evidently on the theory that the ques-
tons had not been answered.. Held
that defendant was only required to
substantially answer appropriate
questions submitted and that in view
of the state of the record when this
offer was made defendant should have
been permitted to attempt to show
that the questions were substantially
answered.
(Syllabus by the court.)
Appeal from a judgment and order
Of the district court of Cass county,
Pollock, J. -
Reversed. Opinion of the court by
Spalding, c. J.
Barnett & Richardson, Fargo, and
Pollock & Pollock, Fargo, for appel
liant.
w. j. Courtenay, Page, for respond
ents.