Sanborn v. Jackman

Decided June 5, 1881

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · decided 1881-06-05

Assumpsit, to recover a balance for goods sold. December 80, 1878, tlie plaintiff gave to the defendants a bill of sale, under seal, ■of all the shafting, pulleys, machinery, tools, furniture, and fixtures in the second story of the building then occupied by the plaintiff, in Franklin, with all the patterns and drawings connected or used with the tools and machinery.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1888

1 state decisions

Relies on Hersom v. Henderson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-06-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Clark, J.

¶1 It was an incumbrance on the right to use the machine, constituting a defect in the title, if it was an infringement of Corey’s patent. In the sale of chattels, there is ordinarily an implied warranty of title. The evidence offered by the defendants was competent as tending to show a defective title, and a breach of such implied warranty. It was also competent as tending to' show an express warranty. The clause in the bill of sale relating-to the patentable character of the machine, expressed a contract in relation to the right to obtain a patent, and not in relation to the right to use the machine; and the evidence did not contradict or vary the terms of the written contract. Hersom v. Henderson, 21 N. H. 224.

¶2 Case discharged.

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: ASSUMPSIT, to recover a balance for goods sold. December 30, 1878, the plaintiff gave to the defendants a bill of sale, under seal, of all the shafting, pulleys, machinery, tools, furniture, and fixtures in the second story of the building then occupied by the plaintiff, in Franklin, with all the patterns and drawings connected or used with the tools and machinery. Also, two machines not completed and in the possession of one Stevens, which were to be seasonably completed by Stevens at the plaintiff's expense, and put in good satisfactory running order in the shop occupied by the defendants; and in connection with the two last machines were included all drawings and patterns and models of all kinds, with the right to a patent therefor if the same or any part of them were patentable, according to the plaintiff's agreement with Stevens, at the defendants' expense. Also, all machinery, tools, shafting, belting, kegs, and furnace for tempering needles, situate in the blacksmith shop near the plaintiff's shop, also, all the sand and saw-dust in and near the shop, and the castings for a new press, where they might be; also; the good-will of the business. The plaintiff also agreed to give the defendants three weeks' time from the date of the bill of sale, in which he was to render such assistance by labor, advice, and instructions as he was able, to benefit them and carry on the business, without other charge or compensation. The plaintiff also agreed to sell the defendants all the knitting-needles then owned by him and in his possession, to be finished by the parties, amounting to nearly 100,000, to be paid for in sixty days from date, the amount to be determined by count. The plaintiff claims in this suit to recover a part of the price agreed to be paid for the above described property. The defendants offered to show that one of the machines which was being constructed by Stevens was an infringement upon a patented machine owned by one Corey; that they inquired of the plaintiff whether it was an infringement or not, and the plaintiff told them it was not; that it was upon the assurance of the plaintiff that it was not an infringement, and relying upon his representation in this regard, that they took the bill of sale without anything being said about it; that the machine was valuable, and that they would not have bought the property of the plaintiff had it not been for the fact that they supposed and believed they were getting a good title to the machine. The plaintiff objected that the evidence was not competent. The court excluded it, and the defendants excepted. If the evidence was properly excluded, the defendants are to be defaulted; otherwise, the case is to be discharged, and the action stand for trial.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of New Hampshire