Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 Ala. 410

Armstrong v. Bufford

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1874

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1874-06-15

Tried before the Hon. L. B. Strange. This action was brought by Henry H. Armstrong against James J. Bufford, to recover the agreed price of a certain quantity of guano, described as “ Soluble Pacific Guano,” sold by plaintiff to defendant on the 5th day of April, 1871. The complaint contained a count on a promissory note for one hundred dollars, which purported to be given for the price of the guano, and the common count for goods sold and delivered.

Relies on Barnett v. Stanton · Savage v. Walshe · Ricks v. Dillahunty

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Cautioner”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1923

5 state decisions

20187418801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

B. F. SAFFOLD, J.

¶1It was not the intention of the legislature, in making it a penal offence to sell, or offer for sale, within this State, any fertilizer not inspected, stamped, and certified to, as required by the statute, to suspend the sale of such article until the inspectors were duly appointed and qualified! Where a statute affects a community, and requires, as a condition to its validity, that something should be done before it goes into operation, the act has no force or effect until the thing required to be done is performed. In this case, the inspectors were to be appointed, and the chief one was to give bond. Time was necessary for this; and in the mean while, the business of the people was not to stand still. Savage & Darrington v. Walshe & Emanuel, 26 Ala. 619, 629.

¶2By section 3544 of the Revised Code, penal acts do not go into effect until thirty days after the adjournment of the legislature at which such act is passed. The contract, supposed to be vitiated, on the ground of public policy, by the act “ To protect the planters of this State from imposition in the sale of fertilizers,” approved March 8, 1871 (Acts 1870-71, p. 68), was entered into on the 5th of April, 1871, within the thirty days. Until the sale of the fertilizers without inspection became an offence, it cannot be said to be in contravention of public policy. The authority which prescribed the policy directed when it should begin. The charge of the court on this point was erroneous.

¶32. The rule in respect to the merchantable quality of goods sold, where the buyer has an opportunity of inspecting them, seems to be, that “ the seller may let the buyer cheat himself ad libitum, but must not actively assist him in cheating himself.” 1 Parsons on Contracts, m. p. 535; Barnett v. Stanton & Pollard, 2 Ala. 181; Ricks v. Dillahunty, 8 Port. 133. I think the rule of the civil law is preferable, that a dealer impliedly warrants the merchantable quality of his goods. But our law says the purchaser must buy on his own responsibility, or ask for a warranty.

¶4The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

/51/ala/410 · .json · Public domain