Reed v. Wood
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action of assumpsit on a note, made by the defendant, payable to Samuel Train & Co. or order, and by them indorsed to the plaintiff. _ The defendant pleaded in offset a claim for damages, against the said Train & Co., upon a warranty of a portion of the hides, the sale of which formed a part of the consideration of the note in suit.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on a note, made by the defendant, payable to Samuel Train & Co. or order, and by them indorsed to the plaintiff. _ The defendant pleaded in offset a claim for damages, against the said Train & Co., upon a warranty of a portion of the hides, the sale of which formed a part of the consideration of the note in suit. The defendant, in support of his claim, shewed a bill of sale of the hides, in the ordinary form, and containing no warranty of quality. He then offered the deposition of Hugh McNice, who deposed that he was present at the purchase of the hides in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
It is a rule well settled, that a warranty of the quality of personal property sold must be made at the sale j that if made either before or after, no action can be maintained thereon. It is also a familiar principle, that no parol evidence is admissible to vary, or alter a written contract, or to add a new stipulation or condition thereto, when the parties have-reduced their contract to writing. Neither can the parties give parol evidence of such contract, although the written contract máy be inadmissible in evidence, for want of a…
2Cited by11 opinions
- McCray Refrigerator & Cold Storage Co. v. Woods & ZentMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Lower v. HickmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Saville v. ChalmersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1888
- Aetna Chemical Co. v. Spaulding & Kimball Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1924
- Bush v. BradfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.