Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1859-02-11
Important Legal Decision.

OdLueS a. L duuoCh To- A~t'iH- cue ctlO-
bridge. Remanded from Supreme
Court.
S. B. Colby and Benz. Il Steele, At
torney for Plaintiff.
Jesse Cooper and T. P. Redfeld for
Defendant.
This case, which has just passed its
final hearing, was an action for damages
for fraud in the sale of horse. 1t APP
peared that one Dow, of Craftsbury, the
Plaintiffs agent, put up at the Defend
ants tavern in Peacham, with horse of
Plaintiffs which he exchanged for horse
Of the Defendants under the following
circumstances The Defendant propos-
ed to Dow to swap horses and said to
him have young horse, too young
for my bu siness, (Which is staging which
has been worked hard, is thin in flesh and
out of fix, and ought to be turned out to
fall feed, and run in the yard during the
winters" and said further in reply to
questions of BOWS, that the horse feeds
WE'LL has no cough and his swollen
ankles are occasioned by hard work.
After some talk the exchange was made
ny Defendants paying Dow fifty dollars
as boot. The Plaintiff evidence tended
to show that the horse that Dow disposed
of was worth from one hundred to one
hundred and twenty five dollars, and De-
PENDANT claimed that he was not worth
more than fifty dollars. 1t appeared that
Immediately after the trade was made
Dow put the horse in a wagon and start
ed for Craftsbury that he had proceed
ed but few rods when the horse dis
charged blood with his manure, and be-
fore he had gone mile he again discharg-
ed his manure with streams of blood
throwing it over the dasher into the wag-
on; that he then went back and told the
Defendant the trouble, and asked him to
swap back that the Defendant said he
did not think it would injure him, and de-
cined to re-exchange; that Dow went
: home with the horse and doctored him
till the next April, when he died of the
same disorder, which was bloody fux E;
that said horse was apparently worth
5 seventy-fye dollars when the trade was
; made, and would have been worth that
but for this disease. Itappeared further
: that the Plaintiff knew of the disease at
, the time Of the exchange. 1t was claim
ed by the Defendant that inasmuch as he
had stated nothing that was false and had
2 not warranted the horse, no damages
Y could be recovered of him as he was IN
d der 10 obligation in law to expose any
: special defects of property which he sold
b without warranty, that he had stated that
? the horse was "out of fix" and that was
enough. The court instructed the jury
= that although parties had a right to sell
J. property without any disclosure of de-
+ fects therein, provided it was so under.
stood by the parties, and no artifce was
e used to conceal such defects, yet if the
d vendor commenced to make disclosure
Ii he had no right to stop with a partial dis
= closure, that negative deceit is as actiona
:, bic as positive; and further that if the
It language of the vendor although true
:. was intended and calculated to misleat
+ the party purchasing, or to prevent hi,
n making more particular enquiry or exam
+ ination into the defects of the property
e purchased, and did so mislead or proven
e him, the vendor was liableand the meas
? ure of damages would be the dlferenc,
between the value of the property as i
} appeared under the light Of these repre-
/ sensations and its true value.
y The jury returned verdict for Plain
is tiff, to recover $68,74, damages anC
ct costs.-.Staastead Journal