Holmes v. Tyson
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal No. 99, July T., 1891, by plaintiff Henry Holmes, from judgment of nonsuit of O. P. No. 8, Pbila. Co., June T., 1889, in favor of defendant, Abraham Tyson. Assumpsit to recover the price of a horse. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court entered a compulsory nonsuit. Error assigned, inter alia, was the entry of judgment of non-suit.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This was an action brought for a breach of warranty in the sale of a horse. The learned judge below directed a nonsuit, for the reason that the evidence was not sufficient to show a warranty. In this we think he was right. At the time the transaction was closed, and the money paid, there was no warranty. On the contrary, the plaintiff said to the defendant: “I have nothing to show that you warrant this horse as you represent him,” to which the defendant replied: “ The horse is just the same as when you drove him on Monday.” This is very far from being a warranty. It was, at most,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Farland v. NewmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mannsz v. MacWhyte Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1946
- Michelin Tire Co. v. SchulzSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- Henderson v. Plymouth Oil Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1926
- VanHorn v. StautzIllinois Supreme Court · 1921
- Herman v. BrinkerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.