Bergeler v. Michael
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. The .complaint alleges that the plaintiff purchased of defendant a certain stallion for a stock horse and breeding purposes, and paid him $500 therefor. It is then alleged that “the defendant represented the said horse to be fit and good for breeding purposes, and that the plaintiff believed and relied upon such representation so made to him by the defendant at the time of said purchase.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. The .complaint alleges that the plaintiff purchased of defendant a certain stallion for a stock horse and breeding purposes, and paid him $500 therefor. It is then alleged that “the defendant represented the said horse to be fit and good for breeding purposes, and that the plaintiff believed and relied upon such representation so made to him by the defendant at the time of said purchase.” It is also alleged that the representation was false. The defendant answered, in substance, a general denial. At' the commencement of the trial, defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
LyoN, O. J.
If we understand correctly tbe grounds upon which the learned circuit judge nonsuited tbe plaintiff, they are that (1) an express warranty is not sufficiently alleged in the complaint; and (2) under tbe testimony tbe plaintiff is not entitled to recover on an implied warranty. We shall consider only the first of these grounds.
Tbe complaint alleges that the defendant represented the horse to be fit and good for breeding purposes. The judge regarded this as merely the expression of an opinion, and thought that something more should be alleged before it could properly be held to be…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Mastin v. BartholomewSupreme Court of Colorado · 1907
- Smith v. ReedWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Morris v. Fiat Motor Sales Co.California Court of Appeal · 1916
- Denver Suburban Homes & Water Co. v. FugateSupreme Court of Colorado · 1917