Contract, for a balance alleged to be due of the price of a steam roller sold to the defendant under a contract in writing printed below. Writ dated January 11,1905.

At the trial in the Superior Court the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the sum of $643.43; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

The following statement of the case is taken from the opinion of the court:

This is an action of contract to recover the unpaid balance due under the following contract:

“ Proposal for Universal Steam Roller Executed in Duplicate.

“ February 17, 1904.

“ Mr. Geo. W. Killorin,

Wakefield, Mass.

“ Dear Sir: —

“We will furnish you one of our Universal Steam Rollers of 10 tons weight, F. O. B. factory for the sum of three thousand and one hundred dollars ($3100).

“ Terms: — $1000 cash upon acceptance of this proposition and remaining $2100 to he paid 30 days after delivery of said roller.

“We hereby agree to pay one half of the freight charges necessary to deliver the said roller at Wakefield, Mass, and we will furnish the services of an expert operator to unload roller and instruct in the use of same, for which you are to pay us the sum of $4 per day beside paying for the lodging and board of said operator from the time of his arrival to unload roller until notified by you that his services are no longer required. It being also understood that you will furnish all necessary timbers and labor for constructing incline down which the roller must be run when taken from the car beside rendering such other assistance as may be necessary in unloading roller.

“We guarantee this roller to be a first class and proper roller in every respect for building roads of crushed stone and gravel; well made and durable; of the best materials and workmanship throughout, and we will furnish for one year free of charge F. O. B. cars factory, any part that may be found defective in either workmanship or material under proper usage, but this guarantee does not contemplate furnishing free of charge parts which may be required through ordinary wear and tear.

“ Julian Scholl & Co. by Hines.

44 The above proposition is hereby accepted on the day above written.

“ G. W. Killorin.”

The roller was delivered in the early part of April, 1904. On June 25 of the same year the defendant wrote that he “ bought this roller to be a 52 wide the width of wheels so I might roll stone between tracks of regular gauge. Mr. Hines told me that it is only 52 wide but according to my measure it is 54 wide which makes it 2 too wide to do the work which I bought it to do,” and he finally refused to pay for it on the ground that it was fifty-four inches wide.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress