Krasilnikoff

Appeal by defendant from judgment against him and from order denying his motion for a new trial.

Appellant takes the position that the action is one for damages for breach of warranty as to the efficiency of two certain boilers manufactured by defendant for plaintiff. He concedes that the evidence sustains the finding of the court that there was a breach of such warranty, but insists that the evidence does not sustain the finding as to the amount of the damages. The boilers were constructed at San Francisco, under a contract which required them to he delivered at the wharf in San Francisco, but it was well understood by defendant that they were to be sent to, and used at, a place on the Amoor river in Siberia, thirteen thousand miles from San Francisco.

The court found that the plaintiff had been damaged in the sum of $7,200, the price he paid for the boilers, and gave him judgment for such sum, together with interest thereon at the legal rate from the tenth day of October, 1900.

Treating this case as an action for damages for breach of warranty as to quality of personal property, as insisted by appellant, the measure of damages is fixed by section 3313 of the Civil Code as…