Case Name: GIBSON vs. HAMELL
Court: Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1816-12
Citations: 1 Tapp. Rep. 79
Docket Number: 
Parties: GIBSON vs. HAMELL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the Courts of common pleas, in the Fifth circuit of the state of Ohio [1816-1819] (Tappan)
Volume: 1
Pages: 79–80

Head Matter:
GIBSON vs. HAMELL.
In assumpsit on the warranty of soundness in an exchange of horses, the plaintiff must prove an express warranty.
The law does not imply any warranty of the quality of chattels sold or exchanged.
Assumpsit on a warranty of soundness in an exchange of horses.
Plea — N on-assumpsit.
Evidence. — The plaintiff and defendant met at a tavern, and had some conversation about exchanging horses. They could not agree on the terms, and left it to three men to say how they should trade. The plaintiff expressed some fears that if they traded the defendant would rue. The defendant assured the plaintiff that he would not rue, and offered to give security to that effect. The defendant told the plaintiff that his horse had been sick of the hooks, and was wholly unfit for any kind of work; that he was also weak in the back, but that he thought he was recovering. The men awarded that the plaintiff should give the defendant $6 in the exchange. The defendant agreed to abate one dollar, on account of his horse being destitute of shoes The plaintiff paid $5, and the parties exchanged horses. The plaintiff immediately put his horse to a waggon, and attempted to drive up a steep icy hill, the horse fell down several times, was severely beaten, left on the ground, and died the next day. The other horse died five or six weeks afterwards; neither was of any value.
Blocksom, for the plaintiff,
argued to the jury, that the evidence fully supported the action.

Opinion:
President.
Mr. Blocksom, what evidence have you given of a warranty ?
Blocksom. — If we have not proven an express warranty, we hope and expect to recover on the implied warranty.
President. — In the sale or exchange of personal chattels, the law implies a warranty as to the property, but not as to the quality; proof of fraud will not do, if even that was made out. You have declared on an express warranty, you must give evidence of an express warranty, or your action is not supported. It seems to me, that your evidence negatives all pretence of warranty as to the soundness, and that you cannot sustain the action.
Wright and Redick, for defendant.
Plaintiffs counsel consented to a verdict for the defendant.