Year: 1859

Ian Young vs.. John Young et ais
After careful examination Of this record, We


think it at least doubtful whether the lot Of mules


in controversy had any disease among them at the
time the defendant, Evan Young, sold them 10 the
complainant


The evidence furnished BY the defendant is eer-
tainly very strong to show they had not.
The fact, which is made to appear by three wits
nesses that complainant for many days after the
purchase, regarded it a very advantageous one,
and spoke Of it, is not reeoneiable with the pO-
siion that some Of the mules found TO be bad
ly diseased the next day after their delivery.


1t is true that James F. Gaines does not state,
that day or two aftes complainant bought the
mules he was sent for to tske them to the South /;
and found great many Of them diseased. But in
the same deposition he states that ii was in the fa
Of the year, and about the last Of September
whereas the purchase was made on the l9th of Au-
gust preceding.


The same thing may be remarked,of the testimo~
ny Of Duncan and McColL They did not see she
mules till about The time Gaines them. And
though Smith, the oEerseer Of complainant
them the next day yet he failed entirely to Ex that
the the time Of the disease, in fact to aes
ignate any time


Toe eomplainants Witnesfes treat the disease IS
contagious cue. If 80, it ia certainly iuprobab e
that it existed at tine tims Of the sale, it would
have spread amlng Gees stock, where the mules
remained the night before, and sm0ng the stock Of
other traders kept in the same lot.


W
mules we're not unsound at the time Of complain
ants purchase; and thai the disease, whatever it
was, did not attack them uati sometime afierSa-d.
Bot if this not So the aext question is did the
defendant John Toung or his SOB, Evan Young,
warrant their soUndness And We think they did
not.


The only witness who speaks upon this subject
lie A. J. Gee. But from mis- evidence, taken by it.
SELF or in connection with the ether portions Of the
record, We DO not think any warranty was intended
SO is expressly denied in the Of the dsfeR-
dants; and from any thing in this record, We are
unable to conclude there any.


We have no doubt If one had been demanded, it
would have been given without any hesitation,
defendants appear to have had entire c0nIdense in
the soundness Of the mules. But they were in fne
condition, and, TO all appearances, in thrifty
state. The complainant was goOd trader, and
skilled in such property. 1t was fair bargain and
he took it upon his own judgment


Again: we are equally well satisfied, that if these
mules were unsound, the defendants were entirely
ignorant of it; and therefore complainant is enti-
tied to no relief upon the ground.


Evan Young, the agent Of John Young, who &C
companied ard sold the mules and knew them al
the house Of his father, 8 aes positively that Bei
ther he or his father suspected any unsoundness
And in this he is eOrroborsted by many other wit
nesses.


The fact that one of the mules some six CT seven
months before, had the big head, can amoont TO no
thing; Tor IL haQ gOLte1 Wen, anu Was u NnFAJs 70
sll appearances any of the lot, and is not shown
to have been afterwards diseased.


Neither can the fact that two OF them were lame
in Kentucky because it is believed they were prick
ed in shOi8g, and well before they started; aud
when sold the entire lot was free from all appear
ance Of disease.


Nor do we attach much Importance to the fact,
in Kentucky the price demanded for mules was
$4,000 each for the To-; when they were sOld 70
the complainant at Sl25 00 prudent mau might
well do this rather than retail them in the State OF
Mississippi. Besides the complainant offered STU
in cash for them, which, if defendant had known OF
any disease, We think would have been accepted,
rather than the Sl25. 90 mostly on time.


The evidence therefore, 10 our view Of the case,
entirely fails to furnish any ground upon which
complainant can be allowed relief.


We ars also unable to see that the ChaneeHor
erred iu refusing 10 continue the cause to enable
the complainant to take Grigg's deposition.


To say nothing Of the number Of continuances
which had already been slloEed complainant TO en-
able him 10 take his proof and OF the character Of
the afidavits by which they had been obtained, rs
we frd them in tilis record think it sufficient to
say that if the proof Of Grigg taken, it could
in no way have changed the result, or thrown any
liability upon the defendant


And besides its statements would have been en-
tirely destroyed by the other proof in the record


We affirm the decree Of the Chancellor with etsts.


A correct copy. J.P CLARK, Clerk.