Kearly v. Duncan
| Decision Date | 31 December 1858 |
| Parties | WILLIAM KEARLY v. M. B. DUNCAN. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM SMITH.
This cause was tried before Goodall, J., and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.
Head & Turner, and Fite, for the plaintiff in error; Guild, Stokes, and Bennett, for the defendant in error.
This was an action on the case, grounded on an alleged breach of warranty of the soundness of certain slaves. The evidence of the warranty, relied on by the plaintiff, is contained in the following instrument:
“Received of M. B. Duncan, fourteen hundred dollars, for negro woman Arzilla and two children, sold under decree of court, by William Kearley, commissioner and administrator of Arch'd and Margaret Rutherford, deceased; said negroes sound in body and mind, and slaves for life. This 10th of January, 1857.
William Kearley, Commissioner.”
Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $1,530, to reverse which, an appeal in error has been prosecuted to this court.
No question is made upon the facts. The unsoundness of the slaves at the time of the sale, of a nature and degree to render them of no value, and the defendant's knowledge of such unsoundness, are sufficiently established.
The errors relied upon are supposed to be in the opinions and instructions of the court.
1. The court, in substance, instructed the jury, that the words “said negroes sound in body and mind,” contained in the foregoing instrument, amounted to a warranty of soundness of the slaves; and that said warranty was personally binding on the defendant.
Both of these instructions, we think, are strictly correct. It was unquestionably the province of the court to interpret the language of the instrument, and also to declare its legal effect. And, in doing so, it was proper for the court, upon the facts of this case, to look to the face of the instrument alone. That the words of the instrument contain a clear and explicit warranty, is a proposition too plain to admit of discussion; and it is no less clear, upon a familiar, well-established principle, that the defendant is personally liable upon the warranty. Having voluntarily, in the absence of fraud, mistake, or other cause sufficient to avoid his undertaking, stipulated personally for the soundness of the slaves, though not in anywise bound to do so, he cannot escape from the legal liability thereby incurred; neither can he be heard to aver or prove an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Tom Woods Used Cars, Inc.
...the contract was intended as a final expression of the parties' agreement with respect to the terms included in the writing. Kearly v. Duncan, 38 Tenn. 397 (1858); Price v. Allen, 28 Tenn. 703 (1849); American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Hawkinson, 21 Tenn.App. 127, 106 S.W.2d 564 (1937). See al......
- Hill v. George