Shippen v. Bowen
Decision Date | 27 May 1887 |
Citation | 30 L.Ed. 1172,7 S.Ct. 1283,122 U.S. 575 |
Parties | SHIPPEN v. BOWEN. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from pages 575-577 intentionally omitted] The bill of exceptions states that the plaintiff, to sustain the issues on his part, introduced evidence tending to show that at the date mentioned in the complaint defendant sold to him, for $8,000, 91 sheets of paper purporting to be Clark county, Arkansas, funding bonds; that said sheets of paper were forgeries, and not genuine bonds, as they purported on their face to be; that defendant, at the time of sale, expressly affirmed their regularity and validity, although he knew, or had reason to suspect, at the time, that they were not genuine and valid; that plaintiff believed and supposed that they were genuine and valid, and relied upon defendant's representations to that effect; and that plaintiff had no notice or knowledge that defendant was acting in said sale as agent for another person.
The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that said papers were genuine and valid Clark county, Arkansas, funding bonds; that at the time of the sale he made no statement, representation, or warranty as to their genuineness or validity, but, on the contrary, stated that he knew nothing of the circumstances under which they were issued; that he had neither notice nor knowledge of any want of validity or of any defects in said bonds, nor notice of any facts which would have aroused suspicion in reference to them; that, in the sale of said bonds to plaintiff, he was acting as the agent of Charles W. Tankersley, from whom he had received the bonds shortly before their sale, but did not at the time disclose to plaintiff his agency.
The court charged the jury that, upon the facts conceded before them, the bonds, by reason of certain unauthorized alterations of the coupons, were not valid and genuine obliga- tions of the county of Clark. The jury were also instructed that whoever sells such instruments as those delivered to the plaintiff, The court said further upon the subject of warranty: Without giving more of the charge, it is sufficient to say that its scope is indicated by the circuit judge in the opinion delivered by him when denying the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. He said:
Geo. E. Adams, for plaintiff in error.
G. G. Symes, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 579-581 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts of the case in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
We are of opinion that it was error to instruct the jury that the plaintiff could not recover, in the present action, unless he established the scienter upon the part of the defendant. The original complaint—though, perhaps, not in the most concise language—made a case in tort for the breach of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Camino Real Mobile Home Park Partnership v. Wolfe
...inducing him to make the purchase; if so received and relied on by the purchaser, is an express warranty. Shippen v. Bowen, 122 U.S. 575, 581, 7 S.Ct. 1283, 1285, 30 L.Ed. 1172 (1887) (quoting Osgood v. Lewis, 2 H. & G. 495, 518 (Md.1829)). An action for breach of an express warranty of the......
-
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...for personal injuries caused by defective products evolved from action on the case in the nature of deceit. See Shippen v. Bowen, 122 U.S. 575, 7 S.Ct. 1283, 30 L.Ed. 1172 (1887). Dean Prosser has 'All this (talk of contract) is pernicious and entirely unnecessary. No one doubts that, unles......
-
Spencer Trask Software and Info. v. Rpost Intern.
...the affirmation tends to induce the buyer's purchase, and the buyer purchases relying upon it") (citing Shippen v. Bowen, 122 U.S. 575, 581, 7 S.Ct. 1283, 30 L.Ed. 1172 (1887)). The plaintiffs claim that the defendants made such a warranty when the defendants represented that, "Except as up......
-
Thompson Farms, Inc. v. Corno Feed Products, Division of Nat. Oats Co., Inc.
...and inducing him to make the purchase, if so received and relied on by the purchaser, is an express warranty." Shippen v. Bowen (1887), 122 U.S. 575, 7 S.Ct. 1283, 30 L.Ed. 1172. ...