Lincoln v. Ragsdale
| Decision Date | 09 June 1892 |
| Docket Number | 538 |
| Parties | LINCOLN v. RAGSDALE |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Lawrence Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
J Giles, for appellant.
G. O Iseminger, for appellee.
To the complaint of the appellee against the appellant, a demurrer for want of sufficient facts was overruled. The complaint alleged, in substance, that on, etc., the appellee purchased of the appellant a certain jack, then owned by the appellant for the price of three hundred dollars, and paid the appellant that amount by delivering to him certain chattels described, valued by the parties at the time at the sum of three hundred dollars; that at the time of the purchase the appellee represented to the appellant "that he desired said jack for breeding purposes, and intended making the ensuing season with said jack"; that at the time of said purchase the appellant represented, to the appellee, "said jack to be a ready coverer and sure foal-getter"; that the appellee, wholly and fully relying on the appellant's representations so made, purchased said jack from the appellant as aforesaid, when, in truth and in fact, said representations so made by the appellant were false, and the appellant at the time of the making thereof well knew said jack was not a ready coverer and sure foal-getter, and that he was worthless, and that said representations were false and fraudulent, and that the appellee "has been damaged on account of said purchase in the sum of four hundred dollars," etc.
No argument is needed to show that the complaint did not contain statements necessary to set forth a cause of action for fraud. It was treated in the court below as a complaint upon a warranty.
A warranty in a sale of goods is a collateral undertaking forming part of the contract of sale. In pleading as a warranty a statement on the part of the seller, it should be made to appear as an undertaking which entered into and became part of the contract of sale.
It is not alleged that the appellant warranted the animal, or shown that the representation alleged to have been made by him at the time of the sale was part of the contract.
It is said that his representation was relied upon by the appellee but it is not stated that the appellant intended that it should be relied upon, or that he made it for the purpose of inducing the appellee to purchase, and that he was induced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. William D. Mullen Co.
-
Wabash R. Co. v. Beedle
...etc., R. Co. v. Simons, 168 Ind. 333, 79 N. E. 911;Island Coal Co. v. Clemmitt, 19 Ind. App. 21, 49 N. E. 38;Lincoln v. Ragsdale, 7 Ind. App. 354, 31 N. E. 581. It is to be observed that the test of the sufficiency of the facts stated is not the judgment of an extraordinary man nor of an id......
-
Shirk v. Mitchell
...v. Bank, 121 Ind. 323, 22 N. E. 250;Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Seichting, 126 Ind. 137, 25 N. E. 894;Lincoln v. Ragsdale (Ind. App.) 31 N. E. 581. There may sometimes be an implied warranty that an article is fit for the purpose for which a purchaser buys it. Thus, it is said that if a manufa......
-
Hitz v. Warner
...of the warranty resulting in damages. These averments, we think are clearly sufficient to state a cause of action. Lincoln v. Ragsdale, 7 Ind. App. 354, 31 N. E. 581;Shirk et al. v. Mitchell et al., 137 Ind. 185-189, 36 N. E. 850;Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Seichting, 126 Ind. 137, 25 N. E. 89......