Case Name: J. F. Hartin Commission Company v. Pelt
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1905-06-24
Citations: 76 Ark. 177
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. F. Hartin Commission Company v. Pelt.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 76
Pages: 177–180

Head Matter:
J. F. Hartin Commission Company v. Pelt.
Opinion delivered June 24, 1905.
1. Appeal — bringing up instructions. — Where the bill of exceptions recites that the court modified instruction numbered one asked by plaintiff, and gave certain numbered instructions asked by defendant, without copying them or directing that they be copied, such instructions will not be noticed on appeal, even though there be found in other parts of the transcript what purports to be the instructions of the court of corresponding numbers. (Page 178.)
2. Absence ob instructions — presumption.—In the absence of the instructions of the court, it will be presumed that the jury were properly instructed. (Page 178.)
■ 3. Sale oe goods by description — implied warranty.' — In the case of a sale of goods by description no warranty of grade or quality will be implied where the seller expressly refuses to warrant. (Page I79-)
4. Same. — In a sale of specific articles then in the hands of the seller, and described to be of certain grades and quality, there is no implied warranty as'to grade or quality. (Page 179.)
Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court.
Charles W. Smith, Judge.
Affirmed.
Action by J. F. Hartin Commission Company, a corporation against J. S. Pelt to recover damages for alleged breach of implied warranty of the grade of cotton purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant.
Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff appealed.
Stevens & Stevens, for appellant.
Smead & Powell, for appellee.
Opinion delivered July 15, 1905.

Opinion:
McCulloch, J.
Appellant assigns error committed by the court in modifying the first instruction asked in its behalf and in giving over its objection several instructions asked by the defendant. The bill of exceptions recites that the court modified instruction numbered 1, asked by the plaintiff, and gave instructions numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 asked by defendant, to which the plaintiff excepted; but the instructions are neither copied nor called for in the bill of exceptions, and cannot therefore, be noticed, even though there is found in other parts of the transcript what purports to be instructions of the court of corresponding numbers. Newton v. Russian, 74 Ark. 88. We must therefore presume that the jury were properly instructed; and as the testimony was sufficient to sustain the verdict, and no other error of the court is pointed out, the judgment must be affirmed. It is so ordered.