The National Nurseryman. 
FOR GROWERS AND DEALERS IN NURSERY STOCK. 
Copyrighted 1904 by The National Nurseryman Publishing Co., Incorporated. 
“Advertising is necessary for the future success of any business firm”—Lafayette Young, Des Moines, la. 
Vol. XII. 
CELEBRATED APPLE TREE CASE 
Summary of the Action Brought Against John W. Adams <£ Co,, 
of Springfield, Mass., By Edwin F. Miller For Alleged 
Breach of Warranty In the Sale 
of Apple Trees. 
The case of Edwin F. Miller, of Williamsburg, Mass., against 
J. W. Adams & Co., nurserymen, of Springfield, Mass., has 
just been tried the second time. 
This case was first tried in the Superior Court in Northamp¬ 
ton, Mass., during the February term of the Court in 1903, 
and a verdict of $604 was returned for the plaintiff. In the 
fall of 1903 this verdict was set aside and a new trial ordered, 
on the ground that new and important evidence had been 
discovered. 
On March 1st of this year the second trial was begun and 
on March 8th a verdict for the defendant was returned, 
reversing that of a year ago. 
The suit was brought to recover damages of $3,000 alleged 
to have been suffered from the sale of one hundred and fifty 
Gravenstein apple trees sold the plaintiff and which he claimed 
were not true to name. 
The action was brought over eleven years after the sale of 
the trees and some five years after the said Miller discovered, 
to his satisfaction, that the trees were not what they were 
bought for. The plaintiff testified that he bought the trees 
of an agent of J. W. Adams & Co. in the year of 1891 or ’92, 
the exact date he could not remember; that the agent war¬ 
ranted the trees to be of the Gravenstein variety and that 
they would bear apples of that variety when they came into 
bearing, and that in case they did not bear apples of that 
variety that the defendant would make him (Miller) good 
for all loss that would accrue from such failure. His wife 
testified to practically the same thing, and they claimed 
that only the agent and themselves were present at the time 
the order was given. Mr. Miller further testified that when 
the trees first bore fruit, on a dozen or fifteen trees, in 1896, 
he was convinced from the similarity of the trees in bearing 
and the rest of the orchard, that the entire lot was not true 
to name, but that he waited until 1898 before he notified the 
defendant of his discovery, and at his request the defendant 
visited him and that he informed the defendant of the war¬ 
rant given by the agent and that he agreed to back up any¬ 
thing the salesman had agreed to do. That part of the trees 
were regrafted the next two springs and paid for by the 
defendant company, but that said grafting was not a satis¬ 
factory settlement and was not considered a settlement 
by the plaintiff, Mr. Miller. 
No. 4. 
The plaintiff further testified that the ground upon which 
he had planted the trees had been plowed and manured heavily 
and cultivated for two years before the trees were set, and 
that for three years thereafter it was manured and planted 
to corn and potatoes and thoroughly cultivated and was 
then seeded down to grass; that the trees were properly 
trimmed, manured and washed and sprayed until 1898, 
after which, on the advice of his attorney, no care had been 
taken of the orchard. The plaintiff claimed that the trees 
had never been grafted or budded, but were native or com¬ 
mon cider apples, although he admitted that a very large 
portion of the orchard bore apples of one kind. 
Several witnesses for the plaintiff, none of which were 
acknowledged experts, (one was a depot master, one a fore¬ 
man in a brass shop, one a freight handler), only two having 
orchards of their own and only one of these growing apples 
of the variety in question for market, testified that the fruit 
was not of the Gravenstein variety and that it was a worthless 
fruit for market. All of the witnesses for plaintiff testified 
that they did not see the fruit until the last of September. 
The defendant denied that their salesman had authority to 
make any other warranty than the one pointed on their regu¬ 
lar order blank, in use in 1890, and which stated that the 
trees should be delivered in good condition, that they should 
be not less than five feet in height, and that any other con¬ 
dition of sale should be in writing and subject to the approval 
of the proprietors. The salesman testified that he gave no 
other warrant than the one printed on order blank, and the 
defendant said that the question of warranty was not dis¬ 
cussed at the time he was at the Miller place in 1898. 
TRUE GRAVENSTEIN, DEFENDANT CLAIMED. 
The defendant claimed that the fruit borne on the trees 
in 1903, seen on August 18th, was true Gravenstein but 
lacked quality owing to the very apparent lack of cultivation 
and proper fertilizing and trimming; not a sign of trimming 
was visible except where grafting had been done. It was 
claimed by them that the Gravenstein tree had distinct 
characteristics that would easily distinguish it from any 
other variety of apple trees, and that the orchard in question 
bore these distinguishing features. Many sizes of trees weie 
shown on a plan of the orchard prepared from measure¬ 
ments taken of each tree, showing trees varying from one 
and three-fifths inches to nine and one-quarter inches, all 
of which the plaintiff claimed were planted at the same time, 
thirteen years ago. All of these trees were equally vigorous 
and were intermixed. These small trees were testified to 
by several experts as being, in their opinion, planted some 
years after the original trees were set. 
For the defendant, J. H. Hale of Connecticut, J. W. Clark 
ROCHESTER, N. Y., APRIL. 1904 . 
