Marsh v. Nordyke & Marmon Co.
Marsh v. Nordyke & Marmon Co.
Opinion of the Court
There is nothing in this case that requires special attention, for the rulings of the court below were obviously right. Clearly, the defect in the machinery furnished by the plaintiff company to the defendants, if any such defect there was, might and ought to have been proved in some other manner than by showing the costs of repairs or additions put upon or to it by other parties.
The exceptions found in the seventh assignment, taken to the commission and depositions, might have been sustained had they been preferred in time and manner prescribed by the rules of court; but, those rules not having been complied with, the defects in the execution of the commission, and the accompanying depositions, must be taken as waived.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Where mill-machinery is purchased, with a contract of guaranty that it shall produce a given quantity and quality of flour, defects in the machinery cannot be shown by evidence of the cost of repairs or additions put upon it by one who purchased the mill, with the machinery, from the defendant. Nor by the quality of the product after repairs had been made or after the party to whom the guaranty was made had parted with the mill. Objections to the admission in evidence of depositions, because there is not appended to them a formal jurat, and because one of the interrogatories contained therein was not according to law, will not be considered, where the complainant has not complied with the rules of court, requiring exceptions to such defects to be taken in a certain time and manner.