Weimer v. Clement

• Decision Date: 01 January 1860
• Citation: 37 Pa. 147
• Parties: Weimer versus Clement. *
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 147

37 Pa. 147

Weimer versus Clement.^*

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county.

Bellas & Pleasants, for plaintiff.

Jordan, for defendant.

The facts of the case are fully stated in the opinion of the court, which was delivered by CHAMBERS, J.

This is an action of assumpsit on a promissory note for $100, given by Clement to Weimer, in part payment of an old canal-boat, sold at $150, on which Clement had paid in part $50. Defendant pleaded payment with leave, and nil debet, and gave notice of special matter, that "plaintiff at and before the time of sale represented the boat as in good condition, and fit for immediate use, whereas she was worthless and altogether unfit for use." In this notice there is no allegation of warranty express or implied, on the part of the plaintiff, nor is there any imputation against him of fraud or deceit in the sale.

It is the sale of a chattel, examined by Clement before he purchased, known as an old boat requiring repairs, then sunk in the river, on her bottom, lopsided. After examination and inquiry, Clement proposed to purchase this boat at the sum of $150 — an interview is had between him and the plaintiff, who expressed the opinion "that he thought, by a little repair, the boat would run a season," and had asked for her $200. Weimer's knowledge of the condition of the boat, beyond what was obvious, was obtained from his agents, Hillis & Clark, who, for him, had some charge of the boat. Weimer directed Hillis to tell Clement all he knew about the boat, and Hillis testified that he did inform Clement of her bad condition, which was before the purchase. Clement was fully aware that he was to have a defective boat, requiring immediate repairs, if capable of use. After the purchase, the defendant allowed her to lie lopsided on the shore, partly in the water, exposed to sun and weather, for two months, before drawing her out for repairs, when she was found to be more decayed than he expected. Weimer appears to have acted in the transaction with good faith, and there was no reason to suspect the sincerity of his opinion about the condition of the boat. The parties were negotiating for the sale of an old boat, in bad condition, and in respect to which Weimer and Clement had the same means of information.

We can discover no warranty, express or implied, by the plaintiff, to be collected from the evidence on the record; nor is there any deceit, fraud, or wilful misrepresentation by the plaintiff, proved, or even imputed to him.

The defendant got the article which he had examined before he purchased, and of her unsoundness had the opinion of others, and was to pay for her, not the price of a good article, but a defective one. He chose to speculate on the condition of the old boat, and the amount of repairs she might require; and, if disappointed in his expectations, he must bear the loss. He was bound to regard the sound maxim of the law, "caveat emptor" — and, by the caution and inquiry made by him, he did use the vigilance imposed on him. What are the legal responsibilities of the vendor of a chattel in Pennsylvania? It is well settled...