title:
The Tacoma Coal Company (A Corporation) Plaintiff in error vs E H Bradley and M A Bradley, Partners under the firm name of "The Keystone Fire Brick Company," Defendants in error, Reply of Plaintiff in error.
title:
160
creator:
The Tacoma Coal Company
contributor:
Sheeks
contributor:
Goodwin
date:
1891
publisher:
Washington State Supreme Court
type:
Civil
subject:
Remedies
language:
eng
format:
application/pdf
description:
Prior History: Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County.Breach of Warranty – Damages – Burden of Proof – Evidence – Relevancy – Where there was a warranty of the quality of brick ordered for the construction of coke ovens, and in an action for the purchase price of the brick the defendant sets up a breach of such warranty as a counter-claim, it is error to instruct the jury “that if the defendant, before using the same, had an opportunity to inspect said goods and did not do so, and if, upon such inspection, could have ascertained the defects claims, then said defendant is not entitled to any damages.” A vendee may retain goods after knowledge of their defects, without giving notice to the vendor thereof, and, in an action by the vendor for the purchase price, plead breach of warranty for the purpose of recouping damages.Where, in an action to recover the price of brick, the defendant alleges a warranty or its equivalent, and a breach thereof, the burden is on defendant to prove both the warranty and the breach.Where defendant relies upon the falling in of the coke ovens as proof of the poor quality of the brick, it is not erroneous to instruct that “if the falling in of said ovens was caused by a misconstruction of the same, or any defects in said construction or material used therein, other than the goods involved in this controversy, or the misuse of said oven subsequent to said construction, the defendant is not entitled to any damages.”Where a letter is part of the correspondence between parties concerning the subject of fire brick, specifying the price thereof and containing statements as to the quality of the brick which plaintiff proposed to sell defendant, the mere fact that other brick had been shipped to defendant just previous to the order for those in controversy does not render the letter irrelevant or immaterial, although it does not specifically refer to the brick in controversy.
relation:
Tacoma Coal Co. v. Bradley, 2 Wash. 600 (1891)
relation:
27 P. 454
rights:
These materials are public records. Please see Washington State Court Rules: General Rules 31 for details https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/pdf/GR/GA_GR_31_00_00.pdf