Rotan v. Nichols
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error to Drew Circuit Court. Hon. Theodoric F. Sorrells, Circuit Judgei Where a party defends an action on the ground of breach of warranty, he should prove a return or offer to return the defective goods. 2 Kent 480; 6 Eng. 73; 5 Ark. 397; 17 Ark. 228. Where a contract is relied upon in defence of an action, the proof must correspond with it as laid in the plea, or the defence fails. 6 Eng. 42; lb. 339; 17 Ark. 32. A partial failure of consideration cannot be given in…
Read the full summary
Error to Drew Circuit Court. Hon. Theodoric F. Sorrells, Circuit Judgei Where a party defends an action on the ground of breach of warranty, he should prove a return or offer to return the defective goods. 2 Kent 480; 6 Eng. 73; 5 Ark. 397; 17 Ark. 228. Where a contract is relied upon in defence of an action, the proof must correspond with it as laid in the plea, or the defence fails. 6 Eng. 42; lb. 339; 17 Ark. 32. A partial failure of consideration cannot be given in evidence under a plea averring a total failure. 17 Ark. 607; 5 Eng. 274; 17 Ark. 9; lb. 445. Wherever a party would be…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Compton
Nichols, the defendant below and appellee here, was sued in assumpsit upon a bill of exchange for the payment of one thousand dollars. As a defence to the action he pleaded non-assumpsit, to which issue was joined, and two special pleas, one of which only need be stated, and which alleges in substance as follows:
That on the 3rd December, 1853, Rotan & Knox being the owners of a certain steamboat, machinery, furniture and tackle called the “Joe Wilson,” then lying at Ouachita City, proposed to the defendant to sell him said boat, machinery, furniture and tackle for the sum of two thousand…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Withers v. GreeneSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
3Cited by1 opinion
- Home Insurance Co. v. Allied Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1969