Tudor v. Heugel, 19406
Decision Date | 13 December 1961 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 19406,19406,1 |
Parties | Mary Moxley TUDOR, Appellant, v. Stan HEUGEL, Richard Mobley, Margaret Mobley, Appellees |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John D. Clouse, Evansville, for appellant.
Isadore J. Fine, Joe S. Hatfield, Charles H. Sparrenberger, Eugene P. Fine, Evansville, Edward E. Meyer, Evansville, of counsel, for appellee, Stan Heugel.
Herman L. McCray, William E. Statham, McCray & Clark, Evansville, for appellees, Richard Mobley and Margaret Mobley.
This was an action brought by the appellant against the appellees to recover damages resulting from an alleged breach of an implied warranty in the sale of real estate. The assignment of error is the sustaining of demurrers filed by the appellees.
The complaint alleges:
That upon moving into the house appellant discovered numerous defects, i. e., the heating plant was inadequate, the fireplace smoked, the paint chipped and peeled within two (2) months, the guttering and draining system was defective and inadequate, and the roof of the carport leaks.
And further:
'That the existence of said defects aforesaid in said dwelling house constitute a breach of the implied warranty of these defendants that said dwelling house was reasonably suited for the purpose for which it was sold, to-wit: A dwelling house for human habitation.'
Appellees filed a demurrer on the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Upon the sustaining of these demurrers, appellant refused to plead over and judgment was rendered for appellees. Appellant now assigns as error the sustaining of the demurrers of appellees Stan Heugel and Richard and Margaret Mobley.
Both parties submit that the primary question presented to us and which we are to decide, is whether or not there is an implied warranty in the sale of real property if the vendee has had an opportunity to inspect that which is being sold.
The appellant freely admits that we are presented with a legal question which heretofore has not been squarely presented for decision in this state, and that to decide for the appellant the court must extend the principles of the common law by using the precedents that exist, and making an excursion to a new precedent 'that fits more harmoniously into the map of today's social georgraphy'.
It should be noted that the complaint does not allege that any express warranties were made by either of the defendants nor does it allege that any fraudulent representations were made. The complaint also admits that the
In Shepard v. Goben (1895), 142 Ind. 318, 39 N.E. 506, 507, the court upheld an instruction that:
'A purchaser of property has no right to rely upon the representations of the vendor or seller of the property as to its quality, where he has a reasonable opportunity of examining the property and judging for himself as to its qualities.'
thus applying the doctrine of caveat emptor to a situation where direct representations were made by the vendor.
In the Shepard case, supra, the court cited as authority the case of Cagney v. Cuson (1881), 77 Ind. 494, at page 497,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Old Town Development Co. v. Langford
...a contract for the sale of a new house by the builder-vendor, despite direct Indiana precedent to the contrary, i.e. Tudor v. Heugel (1961), 132 Ind.App. 579, 178 N.E.2d 442. After stating that '(n)either this court nor our Supreme Court are wedded to a wooden concept of stare decisis which......
-
Elzinga & Volkers, Inc. v. LSSC CORP.
...L & P bought the factory "as is" from LSSC they have no claim with E & V; L & P accepted the defects. E & V cites Tudor v. Heugel, 132 Ind.App. 579, 178 N.E.2d 442 (1961) for the proposition that under the law of caveat emptor L & P could not have a claim for the correction of defects becau......
-
Thompson Farms, Inc. v. Corno Feed Products, Division of Nat. Oats Co., Inc., 1-1075A191
...the authority which is granted to the agent, does not bind the agent personally but only binds the principal." Tudor v. Heugel (1961), 132 Ind.App. 579, 583, 178 N.E.2d 442, 444, rev'd on other grounds, Ind., 280 N.E.2d 300 (1972); See also: Kiyose v. Trustees of Indiana University (1975), ......
-
Theis v. Heuer
...very thoughtful and helpful oral arguments in this case. The appellees rely very heavily upon the decision of Tudor v. Heugel, 132 Ind.App. 579, 178 N.E.2d 442 (1961). In Tudor the purchaser of the home brought suit against both the vendor-builder and the realtor who had sold the home for t......