Lane v. . Dudley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Craven. This was an action on the case for a breach of warranty. William Pritchard exchanged with the Plaintiff a mare of the Defendant’s for a horse of the Plaintiff’s. He was advised or directed to make this exchange by Charles Saunders, in the manner set forth in the deposition of Saunders hereafter mentioned. On the exchange, Pritchard warranted the mare to be sound.
Read the full summary
Craven. This was an action on the case for a breach of warranty. William Pritchard exchanged with the Plaintiff a mare of the Defendant’s for a horse of the Plaintiff’s. He was advised or directed to make this exchange by Charles Saunders, in the manner set forth in the deposition of Saunders hereafter mentioned. On the exchange, Pritchard warranted the mare to be sound. Saunders had neither instructed nor forbidden Pritchard to make such a warranty, nor did he know of its being made. Dudley had given no authority whatever, either to Saunders or Pritchard, to dispose of his mare, or to make…
1Opinion of the Court
Taxxok, Chief-Justice,
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The distinction between a general and special agent is founded in such obvious justice, and has been so often. recognised as Law, that the spirit of it ought to be observed, even where the parties themselves have hot stated it in terms. A general agent binds the principal by his acts $ but an agent appointed for a particular purpose, and acting uhdér a circumscribed power, cannot bind the principal by an act in which he exceeds his authority. Thus, if a person keeping livery stables and having a horse to sell, empower his servant to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Haynor Manufacturing Co. v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Citizens Bank v. GroveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Maxwell v. Southern Fidelity Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940