STILLWELL AND BIERCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
v.
PHELPS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Stillwell and Bierce Manufacturing Company agreed to furnish and install machinery in Phelps's mill for a specified price, but disputed arose over whether Phelps was obligated to pay the full contract price when defects were found in the machinery. The Supreme Court held that because the contract required not merely sale of machinery but its complete installation and operation, Phelps could not be compelled to pay the full price without compensation for the cost of necessary alterations, and the proper measure of damages was the reasonable cost of correcting the machinery to conform to contract specifications. The Court affirmed that when a buyer takes possession of defective goods that are integrated into his property, he is not thereby bound to pay the full contract price but may recover the cost of repairs from the seller.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Gray,
after stating the case-as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
The principal position taken in the argument for the plaintiff is. that the defendant, having received and retained the machinery'furnished under.the contract sued on, was bound to pay the contract price; and in support' of this position., cases were cited, holding that under a contract to manufacture or to furnish a chattel satisfactory to the purchaser, the purchaser, if he takes possession of and uses it, thereby conclusively, accepts it as satisfactory, and binds himself to pay the whole contract, price.
Considering the ,instructions given at the plaintiff’s own request, and the grounds on which the plaintiff excepted to the other instructions of the court, it is, to say the least, doubtful whether this point is open. But, assuming it to be open, it clearly cannot be sustained, and the: cases cited are inapplicable.
The plaintiff’s agreement was not for a sale of the machinery, subject to a condition that it should bé satisfactory to the purchaser. But it was an agreement, not only' to furnish machinery of a certain description and x quality, but also to set it up and put it in complete operation in the defendant’s mill.' The machinery was to be erected on the defendant’s land and made part of his mill; and one instalment of the price was to be paid on the delivery of the machinery there, and before the plaintiff had completed the work to the satisfaction of the defendant In such a case, it would be most unreasonable to compel the defendant, in order to entitle him to avoid paying the whole .contract price, or to recover damages for the plaintiff’s breach of contract, to undergo the expense of taking out the machinery, and the prolonged interruption of his business during the time requisite to obtain new machinery elsewhere. The rule of damages, adopted by the court below, of deducting from the contract price the reasonable cost of altering the construction and setting of the machinery so as to make it conform to the contract, is the only one that would do full and exact justice to both parties, and is in accordance with the decisions upon similar contracts. Benjamin v. Hillard, 23 How. 149; Railroad Co. v. Smith, 21 Wall. 255; Marsh v. McPherson, 105 U. S. 709, 717; Cutler v. Close, 5 Car. & P. 337; Thornton v. Place, 1 Mood. & Rob. 218; Allen v. Cameron, 3 Tyrwh. 907; S. C. 1 Cr. & M. 832.
The notice given by the defendant to the plaintiff “ to put the mill in repair so as to do good work ” was sufficient to cover all alterations necessary to accomplish that end.
No error is shown in the exclusion of Geissner’s testimony as to the rental value of a mill which he had never seen and knew nothing of. Whether a witness called to testify to any matter of opinion has such qualifications and knowledge as to make his testimony admissible is a preliminary question for the judge presiding at the trial; and his decision of it is conclusive, unless clearly shown to be erroneous in matter of law. Perkins v. Stickney, 132 Mass. 217, and cases cited; Sorg v. First German Congregation, 63 Penn. St. 156.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (28 total)
-
Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1974)…ers be accorded a new trial. As we have noted, infra, at 124-125, the District Court has wide discretion in its determination to admit and exclude evidence, and this is particularly true in the case of expert testimony. Stillwell Mfg. Co. v. Phelps, 130 U. S. 520, 527 (1889); Barnes v. Smith, 305 F. 2d 226, 232 (CA10 1962); 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 561 (3d ed. 1940).10 But even assuming that the District [*109] Court may have erred in excluding the witness’ testimony in light of the Miller cases, we think ar…
-
Spiller v. Atchison, 253 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1920)…estify as an expert was for the Interstate Commerce Commission to determine; and its decision thereon is not to be set aside by the courts unless clearly shown to have been unfounded, which cannot be said in this' case. Stillwell Mfg. Co. v. Phelps, 130 U. S. 520, 527; Montana Ry. Co. v. Warren, 137 U. S. 348, 353. The evidence was not objected. to as hearsay when introduced, nor, indeed, at any time during the hearing before the Commission. Counsel did in some instances assert that there was a failure of p…
-
Mont. Ry. Co. v. Warren, 137 U.S. 348 (U.S. 1890)…cient knowledge. It is difficult to lay down any exact rule in respect to the amount of knowledge a witness must possess; and the determination of this matter rests largely in the discretion of the trial judge. Stillwell Manufacturing Co. v. Phelps, 130 U. S. 520; Lawrence [*354] v. Boston, 119 Mass. 126; Chandler v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corporation, 125 Mass. 544. The witnesses whose testimony is complained of, all testified that they knew the land and its surroundings; and many of them that they had deal…
Previewing 3 of 28 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pa. Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451 (U.S. 1880)
- Transp. Line v. Hope, 95 U.S. 297 (U.S. 1877)
- Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114 (U.S. 1865)
- R.R. Co. v. Smith, 21 Wall. 255 (U.S. 1874)
- Marsh v. McPherson, 105 U.S. 709 (U.S. 1881)
- Simeon Benjamin v. Hillard, 23 How. 149 (U.S. 1859)