Battles v. Whitley

Alabama Court of Appeals

Battles v. Whitley

82 So. 573, 17 Ala. App. 125, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 143

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 1919

Docket7 Div. 502.

StatusPublished

This text of 82 So. 573 (Battles v. Whitley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Battles v. Whitley, 82 So. 573, 17 Ala. App. 125, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 143 (Ala. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, J.

The plaintiff, Battles, brought suit against the defendant, Whitley, to recover the sum of $50 for rent due for the year 1916. Among other defenses to this suit the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of $50 on account of the breach of a warranty made by the plaintiff to the defendant in a transaction in which plaintiff and defendant had exchanged mules. It is alleged that in this transaction the plaintiff warranted the mule he conveyed to defendant to be “a good work mule,” and was not afraid or scared of automobiles. Plaintiff denied this, and this was the sole issue in the case.

[1-3] Representations, in order to amount to a warranty, must be relied upon by the vendee, and if the testimony shows that such representations were not relied upon .by the vendee, then they do not amount to a warranty. A warranty is a collateral undertaking forming a part of the contract by the agreement of the parties, express or implied. Antecedent representations made by the vendor as an inducement to the buyer, but forming no part of the contract when, concluded, are not warranties, and, on the contrary, such antecedént representations, which by the agreement of the parties enter into and form a part of the contract of sale, are warranties. 35 Cyc. 376; Williams v. Cannon, 9 Ala. 348; Benjamin on Sales, p. 563.

[4] The general charge of the court conformed to the principles of law applicable to a case of this sort. The nature of a warranty was properly explained to the jury. The burden of proving the existence of a warranty and breach of same was placed upon the defendant.

[5] The special charges requested by the plaintiff were all defective except' charge numbered 1. The refusal of this charge cannot work a reversal, for the'reason that the oral charge of the court completely and adequately covered the subject-matter of this particular charge, and under the oral charge of the court the plaintiff had the full benefit of the statement contained in the special charge.

The record is free from error, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BRICKEN, J.

The plaintiff, Battles, brought suit against the defendant, Whitley, to recover the sum of $50 for rent due for the year 1916. Among other defenses to this suit the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of $50 on account of the breach of a warranty made by the plaintiff to the defendant in a transaction in which plaintiff and defendant had exchanged mules. It is alleged that in this transaction the plaintiff warranted the mule he conveyed to defendant to be “a good work mule,” and was not afraid or scared of automobiles. Plaintiff denied this, and this was the sole issue in the case.

[1-3] Representations, in order to amount to a warranty, must be relied upon by the vendee, and if the testimony shows that such representations were not relied upon .by the vendee, then they do not amount to a warranty. A warranty is a collateral undertaking forming a part of the contract by the agreement of the parties, express or implied. Antecedent representations made by the vendor as an inducement to the buyer, but forming no part of the contract when, concluded, are not warranties, and, on the contrary, such antecedént representations, which by the agreement of the parties enter into and form a part of the contract of sale, are warranties. 35 Cyc. 376; Williams v. Cannon, 9 Ala. 348; Benjamin on Sales, p. 563.

[4] The general charge of the court conformed to the principles of law applicable to a case of this sort. The nature of a warranty was properly explained to the jury. The burden of proving the existence of a warranty and breach of same was placed upon the defendant.

[5] The special charges requested by the plaintiff were all defective except' charge numbered 1. The refusal of this charge cannot work a reversal, for the'reason that the oral charge of the court completely and adequately covered the subject-matter of this particular charge, and under the oral charge of the court the plaintiff had the full benefit of the statement contained in the special charge.

The record is free from error, and the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 So. 573, 17 Ala. App. 125, 1919 Ala. App. LEXIS 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battles-v-whitley-alactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack