Flood v. Yeager
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 69, Oct. T., 1912, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Schuylkill Co., July T., 1911, No. 44, on verdict for defendant in case of James P. Flood v. Alfred Yeager. Assumpsit on a warranty. Before Bechtel, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Superior Court. Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed. Error assigned is the portion of charge referred to in the opinion of the Superior Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Hendekson, J.,
The plaintiff’s action was for a breach of warranty on the sale of a horse. It was alleged that the plaintiff when about to purchase a horse from the defendant informed the latter that he did not know anything at all about a horse and that he did not want him, the defendant, to make a mean deal with him; whereupon the defendant said that the horse was solid and sound; that he would guarantee him to be solid and sound. The plaintiff thereupon bought the horse, paid for him and took him away. The horse died ten days afterward from tuberculosis. There was some evidence…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Sessa v. RiegleDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
- Hueston v. HeyburnSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1913