Legal Opinion

Kimmel v. Lichty

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 15, 1801PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Case for selling an unsound horse, the defendant affirming him to be sound, though he had at the time of sale the disorder called the yellow water. Vide 1 Pow. Contracts 150. 1 Lev. 102. 1 Sid. 146. 1 Salk. 211. 2 Ld. Raym. 1118. Yelv. 20. Cro. Jac. 4. Espin. 629.

1Opinion of the Court

After arguments of counsel, the court declared the law to be, that where one sells an unsound horse, knowing him to be disordered at the time of sale, and conceals that circumstance from the purchaser, but receives a price from him, which the purchaser would not have consented to give, unless for a sound horse, the vendee may recover damages from the vendor for this deceit; aliter, where the seller was wholly ignorant of the horse’s being disordered. But if one sells a horse, warranting him to be sound, the contract will bind the vendor, whether he was ignorant at the time of the horse’s…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dushane v. BenedictSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Price v. LewisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1851

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

Powered by the Exa API