E.C. Mccullough vs. R. Aenlle & Co.
In August 1901, Petitioner and respondent entered into a contract of sale involving respondents tobacco and cigarette factory known as “La Maria Cristina” including the trademark, stock of tobacco in leaf and manufacture, machinery and other fixtures belonging to the factory. The inventory of the things in the factory included two lots: one composed of 221 bales of fourth-class superior tobacco from Angadan and of crop 1899 and the second lot composed of 76 bales of first, second and third class crops from Isabela of crop of 1899.
In December 1901, the plaintiff with others, organized a company to which the plaintiff sold all the tobacco bought by him from the defendant. The purchaser, the new company, on examining the tobacco on the two lots said that they were not of the quality indicated in the inventory. Thereupon, the plaintiff, claiming the tobacco in these two lots were worthless, brought this action against the defendant to recover what he paid therefor.
Whether or not plaintiff can recover the amount he paid for the subject two lots of tobacco
No, he cannot recover. At the time of the sale, the plaintiff was the owner of a printing establishment and he testified that he desired to move it to the building in which the defendant had its cigar factory; that it was impossible for him to get the building without buying the tobacco factory and for that reason bought it, intending to sell as soon as he could without loss.
The document of August 1901 was a completed contract of sale. The plaintiff agreed to buy, among other things, all of the leaf tobacco in the factory. By its terms, the plaintiff was bound to take all the leaf tobacco then belonging to the factory and to pay therefor the prices in the invoices. This obligation was absolute and did not depend at all upon the quality of the tobacco or its value. He did not, in this contract, reserve the right to reject the tobacco were it not of a specific crop. He did not buy tobacco of a particular kind, class or quality.
There is no evidence to show that any representations as to the quality of the tobacco were made by to the plaintiff by the defendant prior to the contract, nor that there was any agreement prior to that time as to an exhibition of samples nor that the plaintiff prior to that time made any examination or inquiry as to the quality of the tobacco. The fact is that the plaintiff, in order to get the building has to buy the factory and everything that went with it.
Plaintiff could relieve himself from this obligation only by showing either the tobacco in the inventory were not owned by the defendant when it was delivered to him.