Case ID: njl_5/html/0985-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter Mead against Benjamin Crane.
    Warranty. 
       *0113111*-
    THE action was founded on an express warranty, in the sale of a horse. A rule was served on the justice, certify certain matters; and in his reply to the rule, he says, there was no proof, that Mead, warranted the .horse to be sound at the time of the sale ; or that he knew he was unsound; that the defendant moved for a nonsuit, because there w7as no evidence to prove the warranty; but he overruled the motion, “ and let the cause go to the jury, as, in his opinion, it would prevent any further litigation between the parties, &c.” The judgment was reversed for the error of the justice.
    
      
       See Beninger vs. Corwin, 4 Zab. 257. Smalley vs. Hendrickson, 5 Dutch. 371. Wolcott vs. Mount, 7 Vr. 262. Renton vs. Maryott, 6 C. E. Gr. 123.