Scott v. Holland
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Crenshaw Circuit Court. Tried before the Hon. B. R. Bbiciíen, Special Judge. Action for deceit in the sale of a mule.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crenshaw Circuit Court. Tried before the Hon. B. R. Bbiciíen, Special Judge. Action for deceit in the sale of a mule. Plaintiff testified that defendants guaranteed the mule to be sound at the time of the trade; that at that time the plaintiff examine the mule and called defendants’ attention to the fact that there was a cut on the eye and one on the leg of the mule; that defendant stated that it had been done by a wire, but that he would guarantee the mule, and thereupon plaintiff took him. 'Several weeks afterwards the mule’s eye ran water and finally went out; his leg became…
1Opinion of the Court
McCLELLAN, C. J.-
— Action by Holland against J. B. and W. W. 'Scott, partners, etc. Complaint in Code form for deceit in the sale of a mule by defendants to plaintiff. — Code, p. 947, Form 21. On the trial there was some evidence of a warranty on the part of defendants of the animal’s soundness and that it was unsound. But there was no evidence of false representations or deceit on the part of defendants. The action should have been on tire warranty. (Code, F. 22.) The complaint for deceit being unsupported by any evidence, the court should have given the affirmative charge requested by…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Geohagan v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1973
- Boyd v. Homes of Legend, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1999
- St. Mary’s Oil Engine Co v. Jackson Ice & Fuel Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- McCoy v. PrinceAlabama Court of Appeals · 1914
- Davis v. Vandiver & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1909
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.