Case Name: Executors of James Hart v. John Edwards
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-05
Citations: 2 Bail. 306
Docket Number: 
Parties: Executors of James Hart v. John Edwards.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 306–307

Head Matter:
Executors of James Hart v. John Edwards.
Where a slave is sold, with notice that he is diseased, however slightly, and dies shortly after of that disease, the purchaser is not intitled, without an express warranty of soundness, to rescind the contract, on the ground, that the full extent of the disease was not disclosed at the sale.
Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Edgefield, Spring Term, 1831.
Assumpsit on a promissory note, which had been given for a slave, purchased by defendant at auction. At the sale, the slave looked very ill, and the auctioneer gave notice, that “ he had had the venereal, but was well, or nearly well.” The defendant purchased at four hundred and sixty dollars, which was stated to be a fair price, supposing the slave to be convalescent; but several witnesses testified, that if he had never had the disease, he would have_been worth thirty or forty dollars more. The slave died se^P days after, of a fever superinduced by the disease, or by an improper treatment of it. The bill of sale contained no warranty of soundness ; but defendant relied upon the implied warranty, arising out of the price agreed to be paid, and the concealment of the true condition of the slave at the time of the sale.
The jury found for the plaintiff, the principal of the note without interest; and the defendant moved to set aside their verdict as contrary to law.
Bauskett, for the motion.
Cited Ashley v. Reeves, 2 M‘C. 433, and contended, that there had not only been a concealment, but an actual misrepresentation of the situation of the slave. His death within seven days after the sale, disproved the warranty of the auctioneer, that he was then well, or nearly well.
Butlek, contra.
Can the Court say, that the death of the slave was not produced by causes subsequent to the sale; as, for instance, his being set to work, when he ought to have been put to bed 1 There is nothing in the testimony to authorize their saying so; and nothing, therefore, to warrant an interference with the verdict, and the equitable rights of the parties.

Opinion:
Johnson, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The defendant had notice at the time he purchased, that the negro was diseased; and the evidence shews satisfactorily, that his death was the consequence of that disease, or its incidents : And if he thought proper to purchase, without a warranty against its consequences, he is bound by it. The motion is, therefore, dismissed.
Motion refused.