Legal Opinion

Scott v. Renick

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided October 28, 1840PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Chancery. Case 20. Appeal from the Fayette Circuit.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Robertson

The Circuit Court did. not, in our opinion, err in dismissing Scott’s bill seeking a rescission of his purchase of *64the imported short homed Durham cow Lucilla, from the defendant Renick.

There is no implied warranty in a fair sale of a Durham cow, that she will breed, tho’ purchased for that purpose, and at a price justified by no other object— The maxim cave- ■ atanptor, applies in such a case. Menifee for appellant: Robinson cf- Johnson for appellee.

1st. Though the price ($1000,) indicates very clearly that her presumed capacity as a breeder, was the chief and probably the only inducement to…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. McQuaid v. RossWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Burnett v. HensleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1902
  3. Griffin v. RunnionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Cantrell v. DotsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API