Johnston v. Cope
Johnston v. Cope, 3 H. & J. 89 (1810)
Headnotes
In assumpsit on a verbal agreement to recover the erice paid for merchandize pm* Ved.to foe unsound* sold and delivered t>Y the defendants , to the plainuff,— Held, that the bare Circumstance of selling gno'ds and chattels for a foil price, does not Of itself raise a warranty; and that the seller is not responsible fin* their iitwmndness, uu■less he warranted them to foe sound* or knew they were nor at the time of the sale, in which latter case he would foe liable for the fraud
Summary
Appeal from Baltimore Counly Court. Rssumpsit by the appellant against the appellees, on an agreement for the sale of six bales of iinens called Flanders sheetings; to be furnished and supplied by the latter to the former, of good and merchantable linens, at anáfora large sum of money, and for which payment had been made. The declaration stated, that although six bales were afterwards delivered, yet they were not good, sound; merchantable Finens, but on the contrary bad and unmerchantable, &c The general issue was pleaded; and at the trial the plaintiff prayed the court to direct the jury; that if they should be of opinion from the testimony, that the merchandize in question was sold to the plaintiff for the full merchantable price, that it implies a warranty that the same was, at the time ofthé sale, good, sound and merchantable; and that if the merchandize in question was unsound, and that unsoundaess was not obvious to the buyer at the timé of the sale, in the state in which such goods are usually sold, the plaintiff iá Entitled to recover on the ground of such implied warranty; This direction the court, [■Niehoí&on, Ch. J. and Hollingsworth,'A. J.] refused to give,' being of opinion that the liare circumstance of selling goods and chattels for a full price,1 does not of itself raise a warranty, and that . the' seller is hot responsible for the urísoundfíeás of siich goods add chattels,- unless he warranted them to bé' sound, or knew of their ufisoundness at the time of sale, id which latter case he would be liable for the fraud.- The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, hd appealed to this court;
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
JUDCiMEXT AiTIKMED.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.