Staines v. Shore

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Gibson
• Citation: Staines v. Shore, 16 Pa. 200 (Pa. 1851)
• Decision Date: 26 May 1851
• Parties: Staines <I>versus</I> Shore.

16 Pa. 200

Staines versus Shore.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 26, 1851.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Huntingdon county.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Fisher, for plaintiff in error.—That it was not material whether Shore knew that the horse was unsound. If one asserts what he does not know, he is guilty of falsehood: Story's Eq. 193; 9 Watts 55, McFarland v. Newman; Oliphant on the Law of Horses, Racing &c. 84, and notes.

[BELL, J. — There must be either a warranty or deceit.]

That it was illegal to employ a puffer: Pennock's Appeal, 1 Harris 446; Babington on Auctions 48, 49, 52.

Cornyn, for defendant.—The purchaser gave his note and took the horse. He kept him till he died, and he did not, at the time, allege unsoundness.

A naked affirmation is not itself an express warranty, nor evidence of it: McFarland v. Newman, 9 Watts 55. To constitute a warranty, the words must not be dubious or equivocal, but it must appear that the affirmant intended to warrant, and did not express a mere matter of opinion or judgment: 7 Ser. & R. 482. The maxim caveat emptor is so strictly construed that it has given rise to another principle, simplex commendatio non obligat; a simple assertion by the vendor as to the value or quality of the goods, does not amount to a warranty: 2 Kent 484; Chitty on Contracts 134-5.

The sale of an unsound horse without fraud or warranty, though known to be unsound by the seller, is no defence to an action for the purchase-money: Pulhamus v. Pursell, 3 Pa. L. J. A fair price implies a warranty of title in the sale of a chattel, but not a warranty of quality: 2 Kent 482.

In Bramley v. Alt, 3 Vesey 620, it was held that a sale was not fraudulent because a puffer had been employed, if there were real bidders who bid after the puffer had ceased: 12 Vesey 477, Smith v. Black.

Fraud without damage, or damage without fraud, gives no cause of action; but where they concur and meet together, action lieth: CROKE, J., 3 Bl. Rep. 95.

Blair, on same side.

Fisher, in reply.—That the legality of the employment of a puffer does not depend on the price the property brought. That the value of the horse was not a proper element in the case: That it matters not whether the defendant got the worth of his money or not.

The opinion of the court was delivered May 26, by GIBSON, C. J.

The direction on the first point was right: there is no deceit without a scienter. On the second, it was inaccurate. We held, in Pennock's Appeal, 2 Harris 449,...