M6 r FEDERAL ~nnPom·mR. o
A and other saw-millmachinery, purchased and received from plaintiffs by
defendants. A The negotiations for the sale were conducted by the agent
of the plaintiffs with the defendants, in Asheville, and, when agreed upon
by the parties, the terms of the contract were expressed in an instrument
signed and sealed by the defendants, in the form required by the plain-
tiffs when an order was made on them to furnish the machinery they
manufactured. In this instrument ordering the machinery the defend-
ants agreed to pay for the articles ordered the sum of $1,600, in certain
specided installments, and made other stipulations and agreements as to
the title and"reasonablel care of the property, until payment was fully
made. In this instrument there was the following warranty on the part
ofthe p1aintiH‘s: ‘
_» “ Warranty. _`In consideration of the faithful performance of the above
agreement, and the prompt payment of said notes at maturity by the makers
of them, Messrs. Chandler 8p Taylor warrant that the machinery above de-
scribed shall be well and properly manufactured, of good material, and that,
with proper management, it will perform well; and. if. the makers of said
notes are unable to make the machinery operate well, then it shall be their
duty to give written notice to the dealer or agent through whom they re-
ceived it, and to Chandler & Taylor, and reasonable time allowed to remedy
` ‘ the defects; if any exist; and if they are not able to make it operate well,
(the consignee rendering necessary and friendly assistance,) and the fault is
inthe machine, then it may be returnedto Chandler & Taylor, and they shall
furnish another in its place. Butieif the parties to this order have failed to
make it perform ari ght through ignorance, or improper management, by either
themselves, or by others connected with them, then they shall pay all neces-
sary expenses incurred." _ u l _
` Under this contract the plaintiffs manufactured the machinery men"-
tioned, and on or about the twentiethof February, 1882, delivered the
same, in good "order, to the defendants, at Asheville, who accepted, and
afterwards used, the machinery in their business, up to the time of the
trial of this case, -in May, 1886. `As the plaintiffs manufactured the
machinery for a particular purpose, made known to them by the pur-
chasers, the law would have implied a warranty on the part of the vend-
ers that the machinery was lit and proper for such purpose, and free
~ from latent defects. The express warranty which was received and ac-
cepted by the defendants contains the agreement of the parties as to the
capacity and quality of the machinery, and the remedy for defects, and
no warranty upon the same subject-matter can arise .by implication of
law. The words employed in the covenant of warranty must receive a.
fair and rational meaning, in ascertaining the intention of the parties.
Itis the fault of the defendants, who knew the terms of warranty before
the purchase, and accepted the same, if it does not give them as effectual
protection and remedy as they desired. As a general rule, where there
is a writtenexpress warranty, fairly made, and fairly and knowingly ac-
eepted, and the terms are clear and positive in their meaning, there is
V rnoliability beyond the provisions of the instrument, as the law pre-
sumes that rational men understand their best interests, and know how
totake care of them. l T