Hughes v. Bray

Decided March 23, 1882

California Supreme Court · decided 1882-03-23

Wheeler, J. On the trial,the defendant offered to show the usage and custom among grain merchants in San Francisco in selling grain, and that by such custom and usage, the sale is not deemed to be complete until the vendee has an opportunity to, and does, examine the grain sold, and if satisfied, delivery and payment is then made, and the sale is not complete until then. Plaintiff objected thereto and the Court sustained the objection, to which defendant excepted.

Relies on Polhemus v. Heiman · Polhemus v. Heiman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1882-03-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1923

4 state decisions

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 →

The Court:

¶1The exception upon which the appellant seems mainly to rely is to that portion of the charge in which the Court in effect told the jury: That where goods are sold by sample the law implies a warranty that the articles shall not be inferior in quality to the sample, and that if they are the purchaser may accept them and bring an action for the breach of warranty. Such we understand to be the law. (Polhemus v Heiman, 45 Cal. 573.)

¶2The charge as to the measure of damages was in accordance with the rule contained in the Code. (C. C. 3313). Evidence of what the usage or custom in San Francisco was as to sales by sample, was properly rejected. (Polhemus v. Heiman, 50 Cal. 438, 441).

¶3The instructions asked by the defendant contradicted those given and excepted to, and there was no error in refusing to give them.

¶4There was some conflict in the evidence upon the main issue, and it appears to have been fairly submitted to the jury.

¶5Judgment and order affirmed.