
    J. Russell White, Appellant, v. Richmond Light and Railroad Company et al., Respondents.
    (Submitted February 25, 1927;
    decided March 29, 1927.)
    
      Contract — warranty — action to recover for breach of alleged warranty to furnish and install an electric oven that would refine camphor — insufficiency of evidence to establish warranty.
    
    
      White v. Richmond Light & R. R. Co., 217 App. Div. 90, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May 29, 1926, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term. The action was to recover for an alleged breach of warranty. The complaint alleged that plaintiff entered into a contract with' defendants whereby the latter agreed to construct and furnish to plaintiff parts for an electric oven which would refine camphor; that thereafter defendants delivered and installed the oven but that it failed to work properly and failed to refine camphor, by reason of which plaintiff was damaged. The complaint was dismissed on the grounds that plaintiff’s evidence failed to establish a warranty, express or implied; that the entire transaction was an experiment; that plaintiff was an expert on the subject of refining camphor and did not rely upon any statements or promises of defendants’ agents that the experiment would succeed. Furthermore, there was no sale of a completed apparatus which was or could be the subject of warranty.
    
      Henry S. Miller for appellant.
    
      Bertram G. Eadie and Daniel G. Brennan for Richmond Light and Railroad Company et al., respondents.
    
      
      John C. Rowe and Herbert H. Flagg for General Electric Company, respondent.
    
      Howard M. Park and Frederick W. Park for Young Brothers Company et al., respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ. Not sitting: Andrews. J.  