Filkins v. Whyland
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an appeal from a judgment of the Troy mayor’s court. The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of a warranty upon the sale of a horse. Upon the trial, the plaintiff gave evidence to prove the purchase of a horse of the defendant by him; that the defendant warranted the horse to be sound, and a breach of the warranty.
Read the full summary
THIS was an appeal from a judgment of the Troy mayor’s court. The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of a warranty upon the sale of a horse. Upon the trial, the plaintiff gave evidence to prove the purchase of a horse of the defendant by him; that the defendant warranted the horse to be sound, and a breach of the warranty. The defendant proved that when the horse was purchased and paid for by the plaintiff, an instrument in writing was executed and delivered to the plaintiff, as follows: “ Troy, Nov. 19, ’52.- 0. B. Filkins, Bo’t of C. Whyland one horse, $150. Beeeived…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Harris, J.
I regard the instrument executed at the time of the sale, as a mere receipt. It acknowledges that the plaintiff has paid the purchase money upon the sale of a horse, and nothing more. It contains no agreement, stipulation or condition which characterizes a contract whose written terms cannot be varied by parol. The two things are entirely independent of each other. The writing is evidence to them that the plaintiff had purchased the horse and had paid a certain price for him. The parol evidence is given to show a contract touching the horse, it is true, but relating to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. PowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Hahn v. DoolittleWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
- Bonesteel v. FlackNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Whitman v. Revels' Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1863