Case ID: njl_9/html/0314-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ewing, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry Weaver vs. Henry Wallace.
    An action cannot be maintained merely for a false affirmation in tbe sale of property. The plaintiff must shew in bis state of demand that he sustained some injury thereby.
    Wallace sued Weaver before a justice of the peace, in an action of trespass on the case, upon the following state of demand: “ The plaintiff complains of the defendant, for that the plaintiff, on or about the month of January, 1822 bargained with the said defendant to purchase of the said defendant a certain-lot of wood standing on land, which he, the defendant, pretended to be the owner of, for the number of about fifty’cords of wood, for the sum of twelve and^a half cents per cord of wood, standing in the trees; and afterwards, to wit, the said lot of wood being on a mountain called and known by the name of the Eaven mountain, in the township of Jefferson, county of Morris, and near to the house of the defendant, and the said plaintiff did then and there cut the said wood into coal wood, and hauled and set the same, and the said defendant, well knowing that he the said defendant had no right to sell the said wood to the plaintiff, and falsely and fraudulently sold the said wood to him the said plaintiff for the aforesaid sum of six dollars and twenty-five cents then paid to the defendant, falsely and fraudulently deceived him the said plaintiff to his damage sixty dollars.”
    The justice, after hearing the proofs and allegations of the parties, rendered a judgment in favor of Wallace. From this judgment Weaver appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of the county of Bergen, and upon the trial of the *252] appeal, the Court of Common *Pleas affirmed the judgment of the justice. Weaver then brought this certiorari.
    
      Frelinghuysen, for the plaintiff in certiorari,
    moved to reverse the judgment of the Common Pleas—
    Because the state of demand was uncertain and contained no legal cause of action.
    
      W. Pennington and Hornblower, contra.
   Ewing, C. J.

The state of demand sets forth no legal cause of action. The plaintiff does not shew that any injury was done to him. It may be, for aught that appears in the state of demand, that he has turned the wood into coal, and sold it, and put the money in his pocket. He cannot recover merely for a false affirmation. On a warranty of title, if there was none, the purchaser could not immediately turn round and sue the vendor, nor until some injury was sustained.

Let the judgment be reversed.