Gill v. Skinker

B. E. Skinker sued Stephen E. Gill in the City Court of Decatur, seeking to recover damages of $6413.65 by reason of an alleged breach of warranty for certain machinery purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant. The petition alleged: that the plaintiff purchased this machinery on or about March 13, 1944, from the defendant in Atlanta, Georgia; that the defendant represented that the machinery was reconditioned and in perfect shape, and was merchantable, reasonably suited to the use intended, and had no latent defects undisclosed; but that the machinery was not in perfect shape, was not reasonably suited to the use intended, and was in a defective condition in certain specified ways; that the defendant shipped this machinery to the plaintiff in Washington, D.C.; that upon the arrival of the machinery in Washington, D.C. it was necessary for the plaintiff to ship it to Baltimore for reconditioning in order to put the same in usable condition; that the cost of shipping the machinery to Baltimore to have it repaired and the cost of the repairs and returning the machinery to the plaintiff was $2544.82; that the plaintiff was engaged in coal mining in West Virginia, and the War Labor Board was anxious for him to acquire said machinery; that the defendant knew that it was necessary for the plaintiff to have said machinery to use in his mining operations, and warranted the machine to be in reasonably usable condition; that the plaintiff relied upon the representations that the equipment was rebuilt and in perfect condition and immediately suitable to use in said coal-mining operations, and was induced to make the purchase of said machine by reason of the defendant's representations; that as a result of the defective condition of the machinery, the plaintiff could not at once use the same in connection with his coal-mining operations until it had been repaired, and was further damaged in that he lost the use of the machine from March 31, 1944, through July 13, 1944, and was therefore entitled to recover the reasonable rental value thereof, which amounts to $4205.83; that the plaintiff, while the machine was being repaired, was forced to rent another similar machine at a cost to him of $1225 per month, and was required to pay the shipping charges on the same, amounting to $450; that the defendant voluntarily forwarded to the plaintiff a check for $787, representing an overcharge on the machine, and giving the defendant credit for this check; and that the total amount of damage to the plaintiff amounts to $6413.65. The defendant was notified to produce certain letters and telegrams to be used as evidence by the plaintiff. The prayers of the petition were for process and for judgment against the defendant in the sum of $6413.65. The defendant answered, substantially denying the allegations of the petition, and set out that he acquired the equipment for the plaintiff and shipped the same to him at his request; that the plaintiff stated that, if the defendant would ship the equipment to him for inspection, if he found any slight defects he would repair same in his shop, but, if there were found any unusual defects in the equipment or the same was in unusually bad condition, that he would ship the same back to the defendant and pay the freight thereon both ways; that the defendant shipped the machinery to the plaintiff and, after inspection by the plaintiff, the plaintiff paid for the equipment.