Case Name: William A. Flood, Appellant, v. Henry J. Senger and Andrew Ande, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-10-07
Citations: 140 A.D. 140
Docket Number: 
Parties: William A. Flood, Appellant, v. Henry J. Senger and Andrew Ande, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 140
Pages: 140–141

Head Matter:
William A. Flood, Appellant, v. Henry J. Senger and Andrew Ande, Respondents.
Second Department,
October 7, 1910.
Sale — caveat emptor — rescission of sale — direction to destroy goods— when purchase price cannot be recovered.
Where there is no warranty on the sale of a horse, the rule of caveat emptor applies and the sale is valid although the animal is diseased.
Where the purchaser of a horse sold without warranty informed the seller that the animal was incurably diseased, and the seller thereupon refunded the purchase price and directed the buyer to destroy the animal, he cannot recover the consideration returned although the buyer, on discovering that the horse was not diseased, sold it to a third person, if there was no fraud in the transaction. Woodward, J., dissented.
Appeal by the plaintiff, William A. Flood, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the defendants, rendered on the 5th day of November, 1909.
James E. Finegan, for the appellant.
Henry Weismann, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Jenks, J. :
The plaintiff sold a horse to the defendant for $72. Thereafter the defendant told the plaintiff that the horse had an .incurable disease, and the plaintiff voluntarily gave back the $72 and told the defendant to destroy the horse. The defendant thereafter discovered that the horse was not suffering from the disease, and did not destroy it but disposed of it to a third person. The plaintiff sues for the return of the $72.
As there was no element of warranty in the transaction, the sale was not affected by the fact that the horse was diseased, for the rule of oa/oeat eorvptor applies. The parties virtually rescinded the contract; the vendor refunded the purchase money and the vendor in effect took back the horse, for he, as owner, directed that it should be destroyed. I do not see that he has any legal right to recover the $72. There is no proof of fraud in the case, although the plaintiff pleaded it. It appears that when the defendant represented to the plaintiff that the horse was incurably diseased, he was sustained by the opinion of a veterinary surgeon that such was his condition.
So far as the horse is concerned, that involves a different proposition. If the plaintiff abandoned the horse, then he is remediless; if, on the other hand, he but gave up the possession of the horse to the defendant for a specific purpose, namely, to be destroyed, but the defendant failed to destroy the horse, the question would arise whether the defendant was not hound to restore the horse to the plaintiff upon demand under the penalty of a conversion. But that question is not involved in this case.
I advise'affirmance of' the judgment, with costs.
Burr, Thomas and Carr, JJ., concurred; Woodward, J., dissented.
Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.