Clark v. Holmes
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari. The plaintiff below, declared agamst the .defendant below, on a warranty, in the sale of pork. The plaintiff alleged, "that he purchased of the defendant, one hundred pounds of pork, for which he paid him 10 dollars ; and that the defendant, at the time of the sale, warranted the pork to be good and wholesome> when, in fact, it was bad and unwholesome, and totally unfit for use; and that the plaintiff, immediately, after he had examined the pork,- at…
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari. The plaintiff below, declared agamst the .defendant below, on a warranty, in the sale of pork. The plaintiff alleged, "that he purchased of the defendant, one hundred pounds of pork, for which he paid him 10 dollars ; and that the defendant, at the time of the sale, warranted the pork to be good and wholesome> when, in fact, it was bad and unwholesome, and totally unfit for use; and that the plaintiff, immediately, after he had examined the pork,- at home, returned it to the defendant, and demanded the 10 dollars, and the charges of transportation. The defendant…
1Per curiam
It was not necessary to make Hyde a party in the suit. The plaintiff had a right to bring his action against the partner who made the warranty, without joining his copartner. The judgment below must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Edmondson v. BarrellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1821
- Journey v. HuntSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1794