Case Name: ALEX CHERRY AND ANOTHER, COPARTNERS v. HALES & EDWARDS COMPANY
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1919-07-11
Citations: 143 Minn. 481
Docket Number: No. 21,341
Parties: ALEX CHERRY AND ANOTHER, COPARTNERS v. HALES & EDWARDS COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
ALEX CHERRY AND ANOTHER, COPARTNERS v. HALES & EDWARDS COMPANY.
July 11, 1919.
No. 21,341.
Sale — breach of warranty.
Action on express warranty- of a carload of corn as sound, sold by sample. Evidence that the com was spoiled and of no value. Held: ' The correspondence and the telephone conversation between the parties were properly admitted in evidence and the evidence sustained the verdict in favor of plaintiff. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Becker county to recover $1,200 for false representations in the sale of a carload of corn. The answer alleged that on or about March 20, 1918, plaintiffs purchased and defendant sold and delivered to them, on board of car, at Minneapolis, Minnesota, 666 bushels of corn on cob at the agreed price of $1.40 per bushel, totaling the sum of $932.40, which purchase price, on or about the twenty-seventh of that month, plaintiffs paid. The case was tried before Parsons, J., who when plaintiffs rested denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, and at the close of the testimony its motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $910.36. Prom an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
P. P. Behróeder and E. C. Hales, for appellant.
Johnston & Carman, for respondent.
Reported in 173 N. W. 400.

Opinion:
Peb Curiam.
Action for damages for the breach of an alleged warranty of the condition and quality of a carload of corn sold by defendant to plaintiff, in which plaintiff had a verdict and defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment or a new trial.
The assignments of error present no question of importance or which requires extended attention in an opinion.
The complaint alleges that the corn was expressly warranted as sound in quality and condition, and that as a part of the transaction samples of the corn were furnished by defendant, upon which, together with the express warranty, plaintiff relied in making the purchase. The evidence fully supports the complaint and justified the jury in finding the facts accordingly. All the correspondence between the parties leading up to the contract, together with the telephone conversation had by them in reference to the proposed sale, was properly admitted in evidence, and therefrom and not from any segregated part thereof recourse must be had in determining the character and terms of the contract. So looking at the record there remains no substantial dispute in the case on the merits. There was a breach of the warranty, for the evidence shows that the corn was spoiled and of no value whatever. The amount of the verdict corresponds with the evidence, and there is no merit to the contention that the damages are excessive.
This covers all that need be said in disposing of the appeal. We find no error in the record.
Order affirmed.