Williams v. Ingram
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Fayette. Tried below before Hon. J. H. Bell. Action brought upon a warranty of a slave in the following words : “ Which said negro I warrant to be sound in both body and mind,” Ac. On the trial, the defence proved that the disease of which the negro died, and its extent, was known to the plaintiff in error ; and that in the words of a witness, they “ traded with their eyes open.”
Read the full summary
Error from Fayette. Tried below before Hon. J. H. Bell. Action brought upon a warranty of a slave in the following words : “ Which said negro I warrant to be sound in both body and mind,” Ac. On the trial, the defence proved that the disease of which the negro died, and its extent, was known to the plaintiff in error ; and that in the words of a witness, they “ traded with their eyes open.” The Court charged the jury in effect, that a general warranty of the soundness of a negro did not extend to or cover a particular unsoundness of which the purchaser had knowledge at the time of sale. There…
1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, J.
It certainly was competent to prove the circumstances attending t]ie giving of the bill of sale, not only to show whether there was any deception practiced in obtaining it, but also to show the fact that the plaintiff knew of the unsoundnes's of the negro at the time of his purchase. It seems to be well settled, that a general warranty of soundness does not extend to or include defects which are at the time known to the buyer. (Story on Con., Sec. 830 ; Long v. Hicks, 2 Humph. 305.) It appears that the plaintiff knew of the unsoundness of the negro before he made the purchase; that he had…
2Cited by5 opinions
- M. H. Walker Realty Co. v. American Surety Co. of New YorkUtah Supreme Court · 1922
- McCormick v. KellySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Mayer Schmidt v. WootenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1907
- Norris v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1896
- Scott v. Geiser Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1904