Bayard v. Malcolm
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action on the case, in the nature of a writ of deceit, and was tried at the New-York sittings, on the 31st December, 1805, before Mr. Justice Livingston, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case, in the nature of a writ of deceit, and was tried at the New-York sittings, on the 31st December, 1805, before Mr. Justice Livingston, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff. At the last term a motion in arrest of judgment was argued, and also a motion for a new trial or nonsuit.* As the court decided, that the judgment must be arrested, it is unnecessary to take notice of the facts in the case, or the arguments of the counsel on the second motion. The declaration contained three counts. The first was as follows,— “ Whereas, the said R. M. and So Bo Mo on…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The question presented to the court, is touching the sufficiency of this declaration after verdict. It must be considered as a declaration founded upon a warranty, or upon a fraud or deceit in the sale of the establishment, in neither of which points of view, can it, I think, be supported. Without entering into an inquiry, whether a mere affirmation is to be considered as a warranty, there is a fatal objection to the declaration, if considered as one founded on the contract. It states the sale and transfer to have been made in writing, under the hands and seals of the defendants. All previous…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Seixas v. WoodsNew York Supreme Court · 1804
3Cited by17 opinions
- Herman v. . RobertsNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Preble v. BaldwinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
- Edgerly v. . BushNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Lyde v. TaylorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Niles v. CulverNew York Supreme Court · 1850
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.