A case of unusual interest between a seedsman and his customers has been decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; an abstract from the Philadelphia Public Ledger, we give:

" In the case of Shisler against Baxter, which came before the Supreme Court upon writ of error to Common Pleas No. 1, and in which Chief Justice Mercur has filed an opinion, the question to be determined was as to what constitutes a warranty of quality in cases where goods are sold after having been first inspected by the purchaser. In the case at bar, the plaintiff went to the store of the defendant to purchase seeds. He had bought some the year before which had turned out well, and he asked for some of the " last year's" stock. The defendant showed him some which he said had been left over. These the plaintiff bought, but after using them, he contended that they were worthless and not what he had asked for, and he brought an action for damages. The Court below entered a non-suit, on the ground that there was no warranty on the part of the seller that the seeds were such as the purchaser wanted, and this decision is sustained by the Supreme Court. There was no evidence that the defendant had practiced any fraud. A mere representation as to the character of an article sold does not constitute a warranty, nor is it evidence of a warranty.

Where personal property is sold on inspection and the vendee's means of knowledge are equal to the vendor's, the law does not presume an engagement by the latter that the thing sold is of the kind or species contemplated by the parties. In this case the seed sold was shown to the plaintiff before he purchased. It was in paper packages just as it had been bought by the vendor himself, and as to its quality both parties had an equal opportunity of judging. Under such circumstances the exemption of the vendor from liability is too well settled to need a prolonged citation of authorities. Judgment affirmed".

To our mind this is a much more important decision than that of some of the lower courts, from which no appeal has been taken, and which have excited so much consternation among seedsmen. Here the case was decided by a court presided over by very able judges - the Common Pleas of Philadelphia. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, and the decision again sustained.

The judges must be answerable for the law. Common sense will endorse it. Any one can tell for himself whether a seed is good or not by cutting a few open. If good it has a whitish or natural look; if bad a brownish or unnatural one. If the seed be small a fifty-cent pocket lens will tell it for him; and for any judge to decide that one who sells a ten-cent package of seed should have to pay hundreds of dollars in "consequential damages," because a man sowed bad seeds which he might have known for himself were bad, is too absurd for contemplation. The funny papers tell us that when Henry Ward Beecher first went to farming, he planted pieces of dried apples in order to raise that particular kind. It is a pity that the joker did not wait longer for another idea from some modern judge and make Mr. Beecher sue the grocer who sold the dried apples, (or damages because they did not come up!