Court Opinion

ID: 5515008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-10 04:28:50.466209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:34:16.589900
License: Public Domain

By the Court,

Bronson, J.
This was not a sale by sample. Salisbury was told to examine, and did examine the hemp for himself. He inspected the bales, cut open one of them, and was at liberty to open others, had he chosen to do so. If he was not satisfied of the quality and condition of the goods, he should either have proceeded to a further examination, or provided against a possible loss by requiring a warranty. Where the purchaser has an opportunity to inspect the goods, no principle is better settled than that the seller, in the absence of fraud, is not answerable for latent defects. The rule in such cases is caveat emptor. The judge erred in charging the jury that there was an implied warranty that the inside should correspond with the outside of the bales. It is unnecessary to examine the other exceptions taken on the trial.
New trial granted.