Hyatt v. Boyle
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of Assumpsit commenced by the appellee, against the appellant and one Seth Hyatt, merchants, trading at Washington, under the firm of Seth Hyatt Co. on the 24th of November, 1827. The appellant only, was taken upon the capias.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of Assumpsit commenced by the appellee, against the appellant and one Seth Hyatt, merchants, trading at Washington, under the firm of Seth Hyatt Co. on the 24th of November, 1827. The appellant only, was taken upon the capias. Issue was joined upon the plea of non-assumpsit. 1. At the trial the plaintiff, Boyle proved that he sold and delivered to the defendants, a quantity of tobacco, on the 10th of December, 1825, and read in evidence to the jury, the following bill of parcels and letter: “ Baltimore, 10th of December, 1825. Messrs.…
1Opinion of the CourtDorsey, J.
There is no pretence that the appellee was not a bona fide holder of the tobacco sold, without knowledge of its unsoundness, or that the kegs were not branded with the genuine mark of Parkin’s crooked brand; but it is insisted that there was an implied warranty of quality, according to the principles settled by this court in Osgood vs. Lewis, 2 Harr. and Gill, 495. A fair exposition of the court’s opinion in that case, will lead to no such inference. The general principle of the common law, is there more than once reiterated : “ that in sales of personal property the seller is not answerable…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Rice v. ForsythCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1875
- Morse v. Union Stock Yard Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1891
- Warren Glass Works Co. v. Keystone Coal Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1886
- Horner v. ParkhurstCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1889
- Queen City Glass Co. v. Pittsburg Clay Pot Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.