McAdams v. Cates
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Polk Circuit Court. The following instruction was given to the jury at the instance of the defendant: u Although the jury shall believe from the evidence that the defendant knew that the filly was unsound from the loss of her teeth, yet unless they shall further find from the evidence that the defendant made some statement or representation as to the soundness of the filly which was not true, or used some artifice to conceal the unsoundness, or to throw the…
Read the full summary
Error to Polk Circuit Court. The following instruction was given to the jury at the instance of the defendant: u Although the jury shall believe from the evidence that the defendant knew that the filly was unsound from the loss of her teeth, yet unless they shall further find from the evidence that the defendant made some statement or representation as to the soundness of the filly which was not true, or used some artifice to conceal the unsoundness, or to throw the plaintiff off his guard, so that he did not examine said filly before the exchange, and that the plaintiff was thereby deceived,…
1Opinion of the CourtLeonard, Judge
The Circuit Court, considering that the party was not bound to disclose any secret defect in the- filly, directed the jury that he was not responsible, unless he used some, artifice to conceal the fault or throw the plaintiff off his guard, so that he did not examine .her. Chancellor Kent lays down the rule of legal duty in this particular to be, that each party must communicate to the other his knowledge of all material intrinsic defects, *224provided be knows the other party to be ignorant o£ them, and they are not equally within the reach of his observation. (2 Kent. Com., 8th ed., p. 482.)…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Jones v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Metropolitan Paving Co. v. Brown-Crummer Investment Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Wilson Lumber & Milling Co. v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Liland v. TwetoNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1910
- Lindberg Cadillac Company v. AronMissouri Court of Appeals · 1963
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.