Defendants, being in need of a coal stoker that would accomplish a particular purpose, made their desires known to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sold defendants a certain stoker under its trade name, assuring them that it would accomplish their purpose. Defendants were entire.ly ignorant as to the ability or capacity of the stoker and did not know that it even had a trade name, and plaintiffs made the sale knowing that defendants were unfamiliar with the equipment and its operation. The Uniform Sales Act, in force in the jurisdiction, provides in subd. 1 that where the buyer reveals the purpose for which the goods are required and it appears that he relied on the seller's skill and judgment, there is an implied warranty that the goods are fit for that purpose. Subd. 4 provides that there is no such implied warranty in case of the sale of an article under a trade name. The stoker would not do the work for which purchased, and in a suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien for installation it was held, that under these circumstances there was an implied warranty of fitness for the specified purpose. Iron Fireman Coal Stoker Co. v. Brown (Minn. 1931) 234 N.W. 685.