Wade v. De Witt
Texas Supreme Court
Error from""Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. .... Suit by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, commenced September 29th, 1853, for breach of warranty of soundness of a slave Jack, sold by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 8th of January preceding.
Read the full summary
Error from""Gonzales. Tried below before the Hon. Fielding Jones. .... Suit by defendant in error against plaintiff in error, commenced September 29th, 1853, for breach of warranty of soundness of a slave Jack, sold by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 8th of January preceding. Answer denying all and singular, &c.; and special pleas that said slave died from exposure and ill treatment; and that he died of a disease called by physicians acute peritonitis and pleuritis of but short standing, of which he was not affected when sold by defendant to plaintiff. The unprofessional testimony…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
There is no complaint of the charge of the Court. As applied to the evidence, it was doubtless correct, and a sufficient exposition of the law of the case. In a late case, determined by the Court of Appeals of South Carolina, in an action upon a breach of warranty of the soundness of a negro, it was held, substantially, that to constitute the breach of warranty, the disease must have existed in a formed state at the time of the sale, and have been of a permanent nature, calculated materially to aifect the value of the slave. A disease of any kind, if easily removed, but by neglect or…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. CoellaWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- State v. HoytSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1878
- Boyle v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Leon & H. Blum v. JonesTexas Supreme Court · 1894
- People v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.