Shepherd v. Worthing
Supreme Court of Vermont
IN ERROR. The plaintiff below declared against the defendant there, in a plea of the case. For that, whereas, heretofore, to wit, on, &c.at, &c. in consideration that the said Abner, at the special instance and request of the said Jared, would buy of him the said Jared, a certain black mare, at and for a certain price or sum of money, to wit, the sum of $80, to be therefor, paid by him the said Ab-tier, he the said Jared, then and there faithfully promised the said Abner,…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. The plaintiff below declared against the defendant there, in a plea of the case. For that, whereas, heretofore, to wit, on, &c.at, &c. in consideration that the said Abner, at the special instance and request of the said Jared, would buy of him the said Jared, a certain black mare, at and for a certain price or sum of money, to wit, the sum of $80, to be therefor, paid by him the said Ab-tier, he the said Jared, then and there faithfully promised the said Abner, that the said mare was sound; and the said Abner avers, that he, confiding in the said promise, or undertaking of the said…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Royce, J.
The declaration below was assumpsit, on the promise of the defendant, that the horse sold by him to the plaintiff *193was sound. On trial, the plaintiff did not prove any actual promise or warranty, but offered to prove that the defendant practiced a fraud and imposition upon him, by saying that the horse was sound for any thing he knew, when in fact he knew it to be unsound. This evidence was offered upon a supposition that, upon proof of such facts, the law would imply a promise on the part of the defendant, which would support the declaration.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Clifford v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Caldbeck v. SimantonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1909