Harkleroud v. Nave

Nave sued liarleroud on note for balance due as price of mill wheels. The defense was a warranty as to the wheels and breach of said warranty.

The count charged the jury that the defendant could not recover by way of set-off or cross-action, any damages for assumed breach of the warranty, unless he had first tendered bade or offered to return the wheels purchased-.

This was erroneous. The ease of Rosson v. Hancock, 3 Sneed, 434, is supposed to sustain tins view of the law, but that -was not an action on the warranty, but upon a deceit and fraudulent representation as to defects known to the…