{ "id": 1501076, "name": "Nelson v. Armour Packing Company", "name_abbreviation": "Nelson v. Armour Packing Co.", "decision_date": "1905-07-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "352", "last_page": "355", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "76 Ark. 352" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "145 Mass. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 770521 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/145/0439-01" ] }, { "cite": "142 Pa. St. 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 976592 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/142/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N. W. 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "96 Mich. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1530974 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/96/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 Mass. 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 716017 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/106/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 R. I. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "R.I.", "case_ids": [ 4842453 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ri/23/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 S. W. 971", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "47 Atl. 965", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "41 S. E. 190", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "6 N. Y. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "18 Mich. 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "12 Johns. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns.", "case_ids": [ 2139271 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/johns/12/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 Mass. 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 759769 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/139/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ark. 144", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718798 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0144-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N. Y. 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2049776 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/45/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Ark. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726664 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/19/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 Mass. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2109508 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/110/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 Mass. 439", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 770521 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/145/0439-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 467, "char_count": 7066, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.880243268489881e-07, "percentile": 0.9645987082644587 }, "sha256": "db05ad439127220b1d5d3f2405ba87dd4df2689d83a14f1557d6b84cf46d35ba", "simhash": "1:883bcf0f7022358c", "word_count": 1218 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:37:18.445737+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Nelson v. Armour Packing Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BaTTeE, J.\nIn these two cases complaints were filed, containing the same allegations. The allegations in the first are as follows:\n\u201cComes the plaintiff, E. M. Nelson, and complains of the defendant, Armour Packing Company, and for his cause of action says:\n\u201cThat the defendant, Armour Packing Company, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey; that said defendant, Armour Packing Company, maintains a branch of its business in Kansas City, Kansas, and the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action occurred in Miller County, Arkansas.\n\u201cThat said branch house or business of the Armour Packing Company in Kansas City is engaged in the preparation and packing of the .various articles of food which'it places on the market for sale to whomsoever may wish to purchase; that, among said various articles of food, the defendant, Armour Packing Company, prepares, packs in sealed tin cans, and places on the market for sale to the wholesale and retail trade an article of food commonly known, and so labeled and branded, as \u2018Punch Tongue.\u2019 That when said lunch tongue is so prepared and placed in sealed tin cans, it is intended and fixed for immediate use as food on the family tables without further preparation, and the public is invited to purchase same as such in this condition; and the label aforesaid was printed and pasted on the can from which plaintiff was poisoned, as hereinafter alleged, in plain letters the following: \u2018Select cooked tongue. This can is soldered on the outside and without the use of acids, therefore allowing no criticism as to the formation of the cans. These tongues are selected, preserved and packed with due reference to their keeping in all climates; guaranteed.\u2019 Whereby said defendant is held in law and fact to warrant and guaranty same to be wholesome food and free from impurities to all consumers.\n\u201cThat on or about the 21st day of December, 1901, the defendant, through its Kansas City packery, sold to A. J. Offenhauser, of Texarkana, Arkansas, a dealer in family groceries, a case of lunch tongue, and immediately thereafter a can of said lunch tongue was bought of said A. J. Offenhauser by the plaintiff\u2019s family, and was on the same day opened and served for supper on the family table at the home of this plaintiff.\n\u201cThat the plaintiff ate of this food so prepared by the defendant, and the same was partaken of by him, trusting and believing that the same was wholesome and good, and safe to be eaten, and had been properly prepared by the defendant; but the plaintiff says said food was not good and wholesome and properly prepared, but improperly and negligently prepared in a way not known to the plaintiff, but the same was infected with ptomaine and other poison, and was thereby rendered unwholesome, poisonous, dangerous and unfit to be eaten, and by reason thereof plaintiff was poisoned and greatly injured, and made very sick, and endured thereby great pain and suffering, and was obliged to have, and did have, a physician to attend him during his sickness, and was subjected by reason thereof to great expense for medical attendance and medicine. Plaintiff was very sick, nigh unto death, during the entire night, and continued to be sick for many days, which said sickness and disability were caused by the eating of said poisonous and dangerous food, negligently prepared and put on the market for sale by the defendant, Armour Packing Company.\n\u201cThat injuries complained of were caused by the negligence of the defendant, its agent or servants, and this plaintiff in no manner whatever contributed to the acts resulting in said injury.\n\u201cThat for bodily injury and pain and suffering incident thereto, the plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum of one thousand eight hundred dollars.\n\u201cWherefore, premises considered, plaintiff prays judgment for his damages, for cost and general relief.\u201d\nThe defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the court sustained. The plaintiff rested upon his complaint, and the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff appealed.\nThe demurrer was properly sustained.\nIn the sale of provisions by one dealer to another in the course of general commercial transactions, the maxim caveat emptor applies, and there is no implied warranty or representation of quality or fitness; but when articles of human food are sold to the consumer for immediate use, there is an implied warranty or, representation that they are sound and fit for food. Howard v. Emmerson, 110 Mass. 320; Giron v. Stedman, 145 Mass. 439; Benjamin, Sales (7th Ed., Bennett\u2019s), pp. 661, 691J 2 Mechem, Sales, \u00a7 \u00a7 1356, 1357; Tiedeman, Sales, \u00a7 191.\nUnlike covenants as to the title to land, a warranty upon the sale of personal property does not run with the property. There is no privity of contract between the vendor in one sale and the vendees of the same property in subsequent sales. Each vendee can resort, as a general rule, only to his immediate vendor. Boyd v. Whitfield, 19 Ark. 447; Bordwell v. Collie, 45 N. Y. 494.\nIn this case there was no privity of contract between appellant and appellee, and no warranty passed with the property from appellee to appellant through his vendor.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "BaTTeE, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "L. A. Byrne and B. A. Lewis, for appellants.", "Scott & Head, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Nelson v. Armour Packing Company.\nOpinion delivered July 22, 1905.\n1. Sale of provisions \u2014 warranty.\u2014In the sale of provisions by one dealer to another,' in the course of general commercial transactions, the maxim caveat emptor applies, and there is no implied warranty or representation of quality or fitness; but when articles of human food are sold to the consumer for immediate use, there is an implied warranty or representation that they are sound and fit for food. (Page 355.)\n2. Same \u2014 -privity OE contract. \u2014 As a warranty in a sale of personal property does not run with the property, and as there is no privity of contract between a vendor in one sale and the vendees of the same property in subsequent sales, each vendee, as a general rule, can resort only to his immediate vendor. (Page 355.)\nAppeal from Miller Circuit Court.\nJoEu D. Conway, Judge.\nAffirmed.\nEucien M. and E. B. Nelson filed separate suits against the Armour Packing Company. The facts appear in the opinion.\nL. A. Byrne and B. A. Lewis, for appellants.\nManufacturers of food stuffs are held to great caution to see that the articles of food contain nothing deleterious to life or health. 74 Ark. 144; 139 Mass. 411; 12 Johns. 468; 18 Mich. 50; 6 N. Y. 396; 41 S. E. 190; 47 Atl. 965; 48 S. W. 971.\nScott & Head, for appellee.\nIn the sale of drugs, medicines and chemicals, the rule caveat emptor does not apply if the purchaser is not an expert, and buys in reliance upon the knowledge and skill of the druggist. 15 Am. & Eng. Ene. Eaw, 1239; 15 E. R. A. 818; 23 R. I. 381; Benj. Sales, \u00a7 431, 668; 106 Mass. 143. There is no general or public duty, but only a duty which arises from the contract, out of which no duty arises to strangers to the contract. 96 Mich. 245; no Mo. 605; 119 Eed. 572; 73 N. W. 163; 142 Pa. St. 221; 163 111. 518; 145 Mass. 439." }, "file_name": "0352-01", "first_page_order": 374, "last_page_order": 377 }