Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/271

This page needs to be proofread.
CANHAM v. PLANO MANUFACTURING CO.
231

defendant appeals. Was it error to direct this verdict? The machine was sold by an agent of the defendant whose name was Crafts. The warranty was oral. It was, in substance, that the binder would do as good work as any other binder in the market.” There is no controversy cither as to the fact of this warranty, or as to the fact of a breach thereof. But it is insisted that the plaintiff did not rescind the contract promptly, after discovering the defect. This would be fatal to plaintiff's recovery unless he was induced to delay action by defendant's promise to make the machine work. Section 3591, Comp. Laws. The sale was in July, 1889, and the binder was not in fact returned until August 4, 1890. Itis undisputed however, that the agent Crafts repeatedly promised to put the binder in working order, and requested the plaintiff to keep it, to enable him (Crafts) to do this. A number of efforts to fix it were made during the season of 1889, but they all proved abortive. Each time the attempt failed, plaintiff expressed his determination to return the binder, but was deterred from doing so by Crafts’ repeated promises to make the binder do good work, and his often repeated entreaties that the plaintiff keep the machine, to give him (Crasts) a chance to make it fulfill the warranty. Finally, not being able to make it work during the harvest of 1889, Crafts promised plaintiff that, if he, plaintiff, would keep the binder until next season, he would agree to see that it was put in good working order for next harvest, to do as good work as any other machine in the market. Relying on this promise, plaintiff did keep the binder. It was urged on the argument that Crafts gave his mere personal guaranty that this should be done, but we do not so construe the record. It was undoubtedly understood by both the parties that he was acting for the defendant in making this promise. During all of this time Crafts was agent for the defendant in the sale of these machines. He was their general agent for this purpose, being intrusted with this business of selling generally, and not merely with the sale of this particular machine. “An agent for a particular transaction is called a special agent. All others are general agents.”