Illinois. Wiedeman v. Keller, 171 111. 93, 49 N. E. 210 [reversing 58 111. App. 382].

Kansas. Parks v. C. C. Yost Pie Co., 93 Kan. 334, L. R. A. 1915C, 179, 144 Pac. 202.

New York. Race v. Krum, 222 N. Y. 410, L. R. A 1918F, 1172, 118 N. E. 853.

Pennsylvania. Catani v. Swift, 251 Pa. St. 52, L. R. A. 1917B, 1272, 95 Atl. 931.

Utah. Walters v. United Grocery Co., - Utah - , L. R. A. 1918E, 519, 172 Pac. 473.

There is an implied warranty of the fitness of salad, sold to a consumer for immediate use. Walters v. United Grocery Co., - Utah - , L. R. A. 1918E, 519, 172 Pac. 473.

There is an implied warranty of the fitness of ice cream sold by a druggist to a consumer. Race v. Krum, 222 N. Y. 410, L. R. A. 1918F, 1172, 118 N. E. 853.

4 Catani v. Swift, 251 Pa. St. 52, L. R. A 1917B, 1272, 95 Atl. 931.

5 Gearing v. Berkson, 223 Mass. 257, L. R. A. 1916D, 1006, 111 N. E. 785.

Contra, if the goods are selected by the purchaser. Farrell v. Manhattan Market Co., 198 Mass. 271, 126 Am. St. Rep. 436, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 884, 84 N. E. 481.

6Coyle v. Baum, 3 Okla. 695, 41 Ac. 389.

Contra, Lukens v. Freiund, 27 Kan. 664, 41 Am. Rep. 429.

7Illinois. Wiedeman v. Keller, 171 111. 93, 49 N. E. 210 [reversing 58 111. App. 382].

Kentucky. Jones v. Murray, 19 Ky. (3 T. B. Mon.) 83.

Massachusetts. Howard v. Emerson, 110 Mass. 320, 14 Am. Rep. 608.

Michigan. Baker v. Kamantowsky, 188 Mich. 569, 155 N. W. 430.

Minnesota. Hanson v. Hartse, 70 Minn. 282, 68 Am. St. Rep. 527, 73 N. W. 163.

Oregon, Swank v. Battaglia, 84 Or. 159, L. R. A. 1917F, 469, 164 Pac. 705.

Tennessee. Good v. Johnson, 53 Tenn. (6 Heisk.) 340.

8Warren v. Buck, 71 Vt. 44, 76 Am. St. Rep. 754, 42 Atl. 979.

9 Swank v. Battaglia, 84 Or. 159, L. R. A. 1917F, 469, 164 Pac. 705.

10Wiedeman v. Keller, 171 III. 93, 49 N. E. 210 (reversing 58 111. App. 382].

Under a statute which provides: "Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment • • • there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose," one who sells unwholesome provisions is liable to one who is injured by eating them, although the seller does not know that such provisions are unwholesome, and although he is not negligent.13

If a manufacturer sells goods of his own make for a specific purpose there is an implied warranty that they are reasonably fit for such purpose.14 An analogous rule has been applied where water is sold for a specified purpose,15 such as mining.16 This rule does not apply where the manufacturer makes or sells an article to correspond to specifications selected by the vendee; or a definite article selected by the vendee;17 or if the vendee actually knows of the existence of the defects.18

11Whitcomb v. Boston Dairy Co., 218 Mass. 24, 105 N. E. 554.

12Jones v. George, 56 Tex. 149, 42 Am. Rep. 689, s. c. 61 Tex. 345, 48 Am. Rep. 280.

13Gearing v. Berkson, 223 Mass. 257, L. R. A. 1916D, 1006, 111 N. E. 785.

14United States. Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton, 110 U. S. 108, 28 L. ed. 86.

Alabama. Kennebrew v. Machine Co., 106 Ala. 377, 17 So. 545.

Arkansas. Weaver-Dowdy Co. v. Fritz, 110 Ark. 90, 160 S. W. 1085.

Iowa. Alpha-Checkrowen Co. v. Bradley, 105 la. 537, 75 N. W. 369.

Kentucky. Clarke v. Machine Co. (Ky.), 42 S. W. 844.

Louisiana. Fee v. Sentell, 52 La. Ann. 1957, 28 So. 279.

Maine. Downing v. Dearborn, 77 Me. 457, 1 Atl. 407.

Michigan. West Michigan Furniture Co. v. Glue Co., 127 Mich. 651, 87 N. W. 92; Steering Wheel Co. v. Fee Electric Car Co., 174 Mich. 512, 140 N. W. 1016.

Minnesota. Breen v. Moran, 51 Minn. 525, 53 N. W. 755.

Nebraska. Toledo Computing Scale Co. v. Fredericksen, 95 Neb. 689, 146 N. W. 957; Oxygenator Co. v. Johnson, 99 Neb. 641, 157 N. W. 339.

New York. Carleton v. Lombard, 149 N. Y. 137, 43 N. E. 422.

Ohio. Rodgers v. Niles, 11 O. S. 48, 78 Am. Dec. 290.

Oklahoma. Standard Sewing Machine Co. v. New State Shirt A Overall Mfg. Co., 42 Okla. 554, 141 Ac. 1111.

Pennsylvania. Jones & Laughlin Steel Co. v. Wood, 249 Pa. St. 423, 94 Atl. 1067.

Tennessee. Tennessee River Compress Co. v. Leeds, 97 Tenn. 574, 37 S. W. 389; Reedy v. Weakley (Tenn. Ch. App.), 39 S. W. 739; Fuller-Warren Co. v. Shurts, 95 Wis. 606, 70 N. W. 683.

15Gold Ridge Mining Co. v. Tall-madge, 44 Or. 34, 102 Am. St. Rep. 602, 74 Pac. 325.

16Gold Ridge Mining Co. v. Tall-madge, 44 Or. 34, 102 Am, St. Rep. 602, 74 Pac. 325.

A sale by sample,19 or by description,20 implies a warranty that the goods sold correspond to the sample or to the description, but nothing more. It does not imply a warranty that the goods are fit for any particular purpose.21 A sale of "common hard brick"

17United States. Grand Avenue Hotel Co. v. Wharton, 79 Fed. 43, 24 C. C. A. 441.

California. Bancroft v. Tool Co., 120 Cal. 228, 52 Pac. 496 [reversing 47 Pac. 684].

Minnesota. Cosgrove v. Bennett, 32 Minn. 371, 20 N. W. 359; Wheaton Roller Mill Co. v. Mfg. Co., 66 Minn. 156, 68 N. W. 854.

Pennsylvania. Jarecki Mfg. Co. v. Kerr, 165 Pa. St. 529, 44 Am. St. Rep. 674, 30 Atl. 1019.

Rhode Island. Beggs v. James Han-ley Brewing Co., 27 R. I. 385, 114 Am. St. Rep. 44, 62 Atl. 373.

Wisconsin. Milwaukee Boiler Co. v. Duncan, 87 Wis. 120, 41 Am. St. Rep. 33, 58 N. W. 232; J. Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Gunderson, 106 Wis. 449, 49 L. R. A. 859, 82 N. W. 299.

A vendor of food for cattle does not warrant that they will increase in weight. Union Oil Mill Co. v. Kennedy, 105 La. 738, 30 So. 111.

A vendor of a particular brand of seed does not impliedly warrant that it is reasonably fit for the purpose intended by the vendee. Gardner v. Winter, 117 Ky. 382, 63 L. R. A. 647, 78 S. W. 143.