Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-06-17
OFEIcEAh.
Opinions OF the SuPreme COurt Of the state
OF Tennessee, at NashEilfes Decembsr
Term, 1858. +-1l-.E
I'M Conner vs. james ana Jsasr.On crupE.

j. NJ Conner vs.. James aud Jefferson Crunks
On the 9Th December, 1854, ths dsfehdans Jefferson
erets, about . Old sna ssF Son Jordan aeogs
for sl50 and executed A's m o. sale Earantns title and
Theneso woman died in very short time. bat few day,
the purchase This acton Is brought against The defend
unsonadness knoEn 70 them at the time.
The second eOut charges that ne James Ctunk
eres 70 be worthless sent her . Alabama Is h
brother the SAD yedsrson Sao vas 1.ov. . e g and
sold. and bill % sale, male y NC aier N ns eSn name
Il IS fully @hd eissry proved Ina o M % 1i
proved by vendor, Dr. Durdest Who sys that hey
we're very deiicate, tn4 ns i, - ssts s ~
sfndsnt Jsoes toI witness MeNihon, before he boush
them, ami ser he knew they were diseased, but hs
could make something them BY patching them mp Al
fhe, to 6Iha IN h hgsther JET JEFF had sold item
On being asked il he AFRAID they Uould hln
for damages he said not that he not known IN th
hoasted that he had made fro hundred dollars upon
TsrS was some proof made by The defsadans to es
that Bo, partner ~ TIE purchase from Burdsst
vas in tact insolVen Bat this does not the
Dr. Crunk the main actor in the fraudulent contrTance "a
the diseased condition Of The tor that he and ais
brother sgsg Dot his sshemes sued.
unless they are protected by technical viii in
Il supposed that e Prineple o ksssgn IS Hancock,
Sneed, 49, must defeat this action iT want es or oder
TO reiurR the slaves, in a rea ,onaole time
That recognised and applied he principle that where
there is a varran.y male by The deendaut, who is at
tempted be made liable upon the ground Of fraui OF deceit In
relation dscts which covered by al express warranty,
t t must he shown that the properly mas h returned or Of
fered 70 TIE vendor in reasonable ue That Is, the
Of waqny abandoned and rseslon claimed for fraud
and that the SUIT Is o thas and not s ee4t te plaintiff
must show aconion precedent TO recovery that ne has
posed to reind BY rendering hack the property Yet the
sound slave should die within reasonable time thar would
tie return aud remove the aiaiculty
Bot that not this case BY means even il the woman had
not died That rule is expressly confined to cases where there
IS contract Of against the decs which the
suit e brought Instead Of the fraud ut the election Of the
But II redress is sought against party upon ground Of
fraud Who has madeuo warranty the dhcHy Gut Of te way
and tender OF the properly unnecessary As Pre- requisite
This Of that kind James Cruk has not only failed
sign any written contrast, but expressly and
edy avoided to escape liability and peerzed fraud upon
innocent for which he thought there Eouldbe
Dress Of the insolvency Of the agent selected TO
the ownership and make title with eovenants-
There is contract with him in writing otherwise to
upon rescind hut he Is sued for fraud ani deceit.
IL is no defence to hm at ms oroths - included IN me ac
cn has otherwise bound himself They both liable,
be but each is separately we'll as jointly responsible for
We think his Honor erred in applying principle
think it vas b the jury But this vas with reference to the rst
e'urt properly qualified by stating that the death of e
Court part charge which related the damages
laid down the law correctly TO he ns where the sale for
allowed or the proved
unsound ender their verdict for tE alone with
substantially correct But the YerdcG defendants
proued by the closing remarks Of the judge upon the
quest defendants counsel instruct the Jury the effect that
upon sale 10 gross The plaintiff could not elect 70 keep the boy
Jordan and for Luerea and that suit would
either the ground Of fraud Eithou
sufficient bO The Court refused
this instruction upon the express egRd that he had ehargd
bound render their verdict for deenans pre-
neS that Jordan had bp returned or oaerd 10 be- We ink
the Court had charged before but the jury Cid not
hesitate to upon his Hon0r cnsruesh OF he
laid down be the law. There other
verdict surely had been fully
1t easy, from the evidence ascertain how mich had
been given for the woman as proof as 70 e value Of
the boy we'll as the at the time Of the sale
There imputed the boy having bought
and sound the cOmpain alone the
fraud in relation her alone the suit
and had correctly held that II the proof
the what the price
plaintiff entitled verdict for that with
then he afterwards said that could
had offered boy that ended the
one Of where be
property purchased. We think this plain.
iii and for 1t reverse the Judgment. CkRUTHERs
A corr ect copy: J. p. .CLARK, Clerk