Little v. Woodworth
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error, from the district court for Douglas county. The opinion states the case. 1. The charge on the subject of warranty is liable to no objection.
Read the full summary
Error, from the district court for Douglas county. The opinion states the case. 1. The charge on the subject of warranty is liable to no objection. Morrill v. Wallace, 9 N. H., 115. Hahn v. Doolittle, 18 Wis., 196. Randall v., Thornton, 43 Me., 226. Smith v. Justice, 13 Wis., 600. Frey v. Vanderhoof, 15 Wis., 397. Boothby v. Scales, 27 Wis., 627. Wilbur v. Cartright, 44. Barb., 536. Willard v. Merritt, 45 Barb., 295. Beals v. Olmstead, 24 Vt., 115. Henshaw v. Robbins, 9 Mete., 83. Warren v. Van Felt, 4 E. D. Smith, 205. ^ 2. The charges on the subject of fraudulent representations were sound.…
1Opinion of the CourtCobb, J.
Action for breach of warranty in sale of a horse by plaintiffs in error to defendant in error. On the trial in the district court the judge, at the request of defendant in error, gave the following instructions in charge to the jury:
3. If during the negotiation for the sale of the horse the defendant made an assertion of soundness, which assertion was intended to cause the sale of the horse, and was operative or effectual in causing such sale, then such assertion would constitute a warranty. But a mere expression of an opinion is not enough to constitute a warranty.
4. But in case you should…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Watson v. RoodeNebraska Supreme Court · 1890
- Erskine v. SwansonNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Frick Co. v. LawsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Kemp v. MaysIndiana Court of Appeals · 1920
- Halliday v. BriggsNebraska Supreme Court · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.