Penniman v. Pierson
Supreme Court of Vermont
THIS was a Writ sf Error brought by Penniman to reverse a judgment which Pierson had recovered against him at the County Court holden for this County in February, 1822. The original action was commenced before a Justice of the Peace, and came to said County Court by appeal; in which Court Piers~n declared against Penniman, for that whereas heretofore to wit on the 20th day of March, 1820, in consideration that the sai~l Pierson would purchase of the said Penniman a yoke of…
Read the full summary
THIS was a Writ sf Error brought by Penniman to reverse a judgment which Pierson had recovered against him at the County Court holden for this County in February, 1822. The original action was commenced before a Justice of the Peace, and came to said County Court by appeal; in which Court Piers~n declared against Penniman, for that whereas heretofore to wit on the 20th day of March, 1820, in consideration that the sai~l Pierson would purchase of the said Penniman a yoke of oxen, and would pay him therefor a certain,sum, to wit, the sum of $80, he the said Penniman undertook and faithfully…
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
On the trial of this action in the Court below, the Court were requested to charge the Jury “ that they could not find a verdict against the defendant, unless the plaintiff proved an express warranty or fraud.” The Court refused so to charge the Jury, and charged them, that if the defendant sold the ox, mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration, tor what he was worth, if sound^ the law implied a warranty. — That a sound price implies a warranty that the article sold is sound where there is no visible defect.
A bill of exceptions was tendered to this and other, parts of the charge of the Court.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Barrett & Co. v. Hall & Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1826