Logan v. Holland
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. C. A. Frazer. It was proved on the trial of this case, the main facts of which appear in the opinion, that the defendant objected to purchasing the horse on account of his supposed diseased condition; that the plaintiff assured him “ there was nothing the matter with the horse, except that he had eaten too much, and was a little foundered; that he would soon get well;” and he represented the horse “to be sound except the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Rusk. Tried below before the Hon. C. A. Frazer. It was proved on the trial of this case, the main facts of which appear in the opinion, that the defendant objected to purchasing the horse on account of his supposed diseased condition; that the plaintiff assured him “ there was nothing the matter with the horse, except that he had eaten too much, and was a little foundered; that he would soon get well;” and he represented the horse “to be sound except the founder—and sold him as a sound horse except the founder.” It was proved that the horse remained diseased and wholly useless,…
1Opinion of the CourtRoberts, J.
This is an action upon a promissory note executed by Holland and payable to Logan. Holland pleaded that the note was given in consideration of a horse, sold by Logan *399to Mm, which horse was warranted to be sound, and that the horse was unsound and worthless. The proof was that the horse Was warranted to be sound except a founder. The contract of warranty was proved as alleged, and therefore the evidence does not support the verdict in favor of the plea of failure of consideration. “ Any affirmation made by the vendor at the time of the sale, in relation to the- goods sold, is a warranty if it…
2Cited by3 opinions
- John Deere Company of Kansas City v. TenbergCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1969
- Nichols v. LorenzCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1922
- John Deere Company of Kansas City v. TenbergCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1969