Case ID: h-mch_4/html/0495-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OCTOBER TERM, 1766.
    Rench vs. Hile.
    This was an action on the case for a deceit in the sale of a negro woman, slave, warranting her to be sound. Plea, “that he did not warrant the negro woman called, &c. to be sound and healthy, and without any infirmity, as the said John above against him hath complained,” &c» Issue joined.
    
      Johnson and Hall, for the Plaintiff.
    
      Jenings and Chase, for the Defendant.
   It was contended by Chase, for the defendant, that warranty must he at the time of the sale or before, and not after — Ld. Ray. 1120. 2 Cro. 196. c. 31. Dyer 75. Bridgeman, 127. 2 Cro. 5. 386. 1 Rol. 33. 97. Salk. 210. Skin,. 104. As to visible infirmities — Fel. 114.2 Cro. 675. That to sell a thing, and not warrant it, the seller is not answerable, though the thing turns out not to be sound — , Bulst. 3. 95. 2 Cro. 4. 196. In 3. Wils. 40, is an action upon a warranty of a mare tó be sound, when she was lame, and a precedent of a declaration with seven counts. An action for money had and received is not a proper fiction to try a warranty — Cowp. 819.

The Plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.