Snowden v. Waterman
Decision Date | 22 March 1897 |
Citation | 28 S.E. 121,100 Ga. 588 |
Parties | SNOWDEN v. WATERMAN et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A breach of an implied warranty that goods sold are "merchantable, and reasonably suited to the use intended," may arise when the goods, because of a defect which could not, in the exercise of due caution, be detected are totally useless and worthless, though in point of fact the seller was ignorant of the existence of such defect.
2. Accordingly, where a declaration alleged that the plaintiffs purchased and paid for certain live stock which the defendant sold "under a general warranty implied by law as to soundness, healthfulness," etc., and that the animals were, at the time of the sale, infected with a named disease rendering them "wholly and utterly worthless," such declaration in effect alleged that the animals were sold under an implied warranty that they were merchantable, and reasonably suited to the use intended; and therefore, as against a general demurrer, set forth good grounds for a recovery of the purchase money, though it was not alleged that the seller knew of the diseased condition of the animals when he sold them.
3. Where such a declaration was also specially demurred to because it failed to allege that the diseased condition of the animals was known to the defendant "at the time of said alleged sale and warranty, and that the same was undisclosed by him," and, upon the judge's thereupon announcing that he deemed the declaration insufficient, the plaintiffs filed an amendment, alleging that the defendant at the time of the sale, "knew, or ought to have known," of the defects in the animals, and the demurrer was then overruled, held, that this latter ruling was right; for, whether the amendment did or did not accomplish the result intended, the declaration was good without it.
4. It appearing, however, that the case was tried solely upon the theory that the plaintiffs' right to recover depended upon their proving a breach of the implied warranty embraced in paragraph 3 of section 3555 of the Civil Code, viz. that the seller "knows of no latent defects undisclosed," it was error to charge, in substance, that the defendant would be liable, not only in the event he actually knew, but also if he ought to have known, of the diseased condition of the stock when he made the sale.
5. The declaration distinctly averring the disease referred to therein to have been glanders, and mentioning no other disease, a requested instruction to the effect that the plaintiffs should be held to proof of the specified disease only ought not to have been refused.
Error from city court of Richmond; W. F. Eve, Judge.
Action by Waterman & Co. against J. W. Snowden. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Arnold & Arnold and E. B. Baxter, for plaintiff in error.
Fleming & Alexander, for defendants in error.
Waterman & Co. sued Snowden for damages for a breach of warranty in the sale of certain live stock. Their petition alleged that "said sale of stock was made without any waiver whatever, but under a general warranty implied by law as to soundness, healthfulness," etc. It was further alleged that at the time of the delivery of said stock the same were affected with the disease of glanders, which rendered them worthless, but that this defect was not then patent, and was unknown to Waterman & Co. By ...
To continue reading
Request your trial