Legal Opinion

Charlotte, Columbia & Augusta R.R Co. v. Jesup

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided February 15, 1871PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Demurrer to complaint.

1Opinion of the CourtFreedman, J.

Where a known, defined and described article is actually supplied according to contract, there is not, as a general rule, an implied warranty that it shall answer the particular purpose intended by the buyer, although that may have been communicated to the seller (Chanter agt. Hopkins, 4 M. & W., 393 ; Ollivant agt. Bayley, 5 Q. B., 288.)

It is only where an article is contracted for to be applied to a particular purpose, and in such manner that the buyer necessarily trusts m the judgment or skill of the manufacturer or dealer, and not to his own, that there is an implied term or warranty that…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sprague v. BlakeNew York Supreme Court · 1838
  2. Leavenworth v. PackerNew York Supreme Court · 1867
  3. Weaver v. WisnerNew York Supreme Court · 1868

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Builders' Brick & Supply Co. v. Walsh Transportation Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1919
  2. Hoe v. SanbornNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
  3. New York Smelting & Refining Co. v. LiebThe Superior Court of New York City · 1881

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API