A. & S. E. Salisbury v. Stainer
This text of 19 Wend. 159 (A. & S. E. Salisbury v. Stainer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
By the Court,
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
19 Wend. 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/a-s-e-salisbury-v-stainer-nysupct-1838.