Beeman v. Buck
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action on the case for selling and warranting to the plaintiffa certain mare as sound, but which was unsound and diseased, and that known to the defendant at the time of the sale.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case for selling and warranting to the plaintiffa certain mare as sound, but which was unsound and diseased, and that known to the defendant at the time of the sale. The declaration was as follows : “ Zadoclc Suele is attached to answer unto Joseph Beeman oí t; Fairfax in a plea that the said Joseph Beeman, on the 26th “ day of August, 1826, at Fairfax, aforesaid, bargained with the “ said Zadoclc Buck to buy of said Zadock a certain bay mare ; “ and the said Zadock Buck, well knowing the same bay mare to “ be unsound, and infected with certain distempers, such as…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion ofthe Court was pronounced by
Paddock, J.
This form of declaring on a warranty is new in the courts of this state, but not new in principle ; for prior to the case of Stuart vs. Wilkins, (Doug. 18,) it was the general practice to declare in tort on a warranty broken ; and when that case was brought forward for investigation, Lord Mansfield, at finding *57an express warranty counted upon in assumpsit, so doubted the propriety of declaring in that manner, that he took the verdict subject to the opinion of the whole court; and, perhaps, the only inducement to change the custom of…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Slack v. BraggSupreme Court of Vermont · 1910
- Caldbeck v. SimantonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909
- Pinney v. AndrusSupreme Court of Vermont · 1869
- Carter v. GlassMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Foster v. Estate of CaldwellSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.