Thompson

Plaintiff brought this action to recover the purchase price of a certain boiler, also certain additional equipment and for the cost of certain extra labor. Judgment was rendered against defendant in favor of plaintiff as prayed for. The defendant attacks only that portion of the judgment which held that the latter was liable for the price of said boiler.

It is admitted that the defendant gave to the plaintiff an order reading as follows:

It is also conceded that the boiler described in the above-mentioned order was delivered and installed as specified in said order, and that payment therefor has not been made.

In its answer the defendant pleaded as a special defense that plaintiff warranted this boiler as being of sufficient size to care for the needs of the defendant’s building and that the boiler failed to meet those needs. This contention is virtually the only issue involved upon this appeal.

The trial court found that the allegations of said special defense were not proven. Our examination of the record convinces us that the lower court was warranted in making this finding.

The letter written by plaintiff to defendant a short time prior to giving of the order previously…