
    
      Barry & Company vs. Usry et al.
    
    1. A merchant always warrants that what he sells is reasonably suited to the use for which it is sold. Therefore, in'a suit on a note given for chemicals to be used as a fertilizer, the plea being failure of consideration, there was no error in charging that “if the jury believed from the evidence that the fertilizer for which the note was given was properly and skillfully applied by defendants, that the soil was suitable and the seasons favorable, and that the fertilizer failed to produce any resultas to an increase in the crops, then the fertilizer was not reasonably suited to the purpose for which it was sold, and you should find for the defendants,” the converse of the proposition being fully given.
    2. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.
    Judgment affirmed.
    April 17, 1883.
    
      
       No full reports or opinions are published in the following cases, under the provisions of the act ol March 2,1875. (R.)
    
   Jackson, Chief Justice.

[Barry & Company sued Usry et al. on a promissory note. Defendants pleaded the general issue and failure of consideration, in that the note was given for a fertilizer purchased for the purpose of increasing, the productiveness of defendants’ land in 1878 ; that the lands were well prepared, the fertilizer properly applied, the crops well cultivated and the seasons tolerably propitious ; but the fertilizers were worthless and of no benefit.

On the trial, plaintiffs introduced the notes sued on. Defendants introduced evidence in support of their plea of failure of consideration, which it is unnecessary to recite here. The jury found for the defendants. Plaintiffs moved for a new trial, because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and because the court charged as set out in the first head-note.

The motion was overruled, and plaintiffs excepted.]  