Kenney v. James
| Decision Date | 31 July 1872 |
| Parties | JOEL F. KENNEY, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOHN JAMES, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Kansas City Court of Common Pleas.
W. E. Sheffield, for plaintiff in error, relied upon Carter v. Black, 46 Mo. 384.
F. M. Black, for defendant in error.
A warranty is an express contract between parties. (1 Pars. Cont. 577; 2 Kent's Com. 658.) The petition should allege an agreement, contract or warranty. Whether the words, acts and conduct of the parties prove it or not, is for the triers of fact to determine. (1 Pars. Cont. 581; House v. Fort, 4 Blackf. 293-6; Duffee v. Mason, 8 Cow. 25; Foster v. Estate of Caldwell, 18 Verm. 176; Bradford v. Bush, 10 Ala. 386; Tuttle v. Brown, 4 Gray, 457; Humphreys v. Comline, 8 Blackf. 516.)
The error complained of is the action of the court in instructing that, upon the pleadings, the plaintiffs had no cause of action and could not recover. The petition was for damages, and alleged that plaintiff purchased of the defendant 847 head of sheep, about 600 of which were ewes, for which he paid four dollars per head; that at the time of making the purchase, and as an inducement thereto, defendant represented to plaintiff that none of the ewes were with lamb; and that plaintiff, relying upon that representation so made, was induced to purchase them; that at the time he purchased the ewes there were at least 575 of them with lamb; and that, in consequence thereof, they were in a great degree valueless to him, whereby he was injured, etc.
The petition set out a good cause of action. It stated a representation by the defendant on which the plaintiff relied, and which induced him to make the purchase. (Carter et al. v. Black, 46 Mo. 384.)
Judgment reversed and the cause remanded.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Central Hardware Co.
...induced him to purchase. It was not necessary to use the word "warranty," though that was done, or to use the word "express." Kenney v. James, 50 Mo. 316; International Co. v. Lipschitz, 72 S.W.2d 122; Long Bros. v. The J.K. Armsby Co., 43 Mo.App. 253; Haines v. Neece, 116 Mo App. l.c. 510,......
-
Messerli v. Bantrup
...77 S. W. 146; McGhee v. Bell, 170 Mo. 121, 127, 70 S. W. 493, 59 L. R. A. 761; Fall v. Hornbeck, 132 Mo. App. 588, 112 S. W. 41; Kenney v. James, 50 Mo. 316. [] The suit is not on the contract itself nor upon defendant's deed. It is on the fraudulent representations, whereby plaintiff was i......
-
Courtney v. Boswell
...Jr., for defendant in error. The petition sets forth a cause of action for a breach of warranty. Carter v. Black, 46 Mo. 384; Kenny v. James, 50 Mo. 316; and the instructions given placed the issues plainly before the jury. NORTON, J. This is an action to recover damages for an alleged brea......
-
Goodger v. Finn
...or of rescission, these facts must be clearly pleaded.-- Schultz v. Christman, 6 Mo. App. 344; Duffy v. Byrne, 7 Mo. App. 7; Kenney v. Jones, 50 Mo. 316; Wells v. Jewett, 11 How. Pr. 242; Fox v. Webster, 46 Mo. 184. Attachment and replevin cannot be maintained at the same time.-- Seligman v......