Bean v. Sabin

Dade County Small Claims Court

Bean v. Sabin

22 Fla. Supp. 206

CourtDade County Small Claims Court

DecidedJanuary 19, 1963

DocketNo. 102215

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Fla. Supp. 206 (Bean v. Sabin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Dade County Small Claims Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bean v. Sabin, 22 Fla. Supp. 206 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

SIDNEY L. SEGALL, Judge.

Judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $75, plus $4.98 costs. The evidence is legally sufficient to establish liability on the part of defendant Eleanor Sabin.

[207]*207Final judgment based on a motion for directed verdict was heretofore entered in favor of the defendant B. S. Austin, D.V.M.

After careful examination and consideration of the issue presented, the evidence compels a finding that the seller (owner) expressly warranted the soundness of the dog purchased by plaintiff. The credible evidence shows that defendant (seller) told plaintiff (buyer) that the dog was in good health — and had just had a puppy shot.

The issue is governed by the analogous principle of law applied in W. H. Hay & Company v. Pierce, 8 Tenn. App. 438. There it was held that the representation of a seller that an animal had been vaccinated is an affirmative fact which has a natural tendency to induce the buyer to purchase.

The same principle was applied in Tuttle v. Brown, 4 Gray (Mass.) 457. There the court held that a statement by the seller, even though made after the sale, in response to an assertion by the buyer “you said the cow was all right”, is evidence of an admission by the seller of a warranty at the time of sale. See also: 77 C.J.S., Sales, §330, page 1187; 46 Am. Jur., Sales, §292, page 567.

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

SIDNEY L. SEGALL, Judge.

Judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $75, plus $4.98 costs. The evidence is legally sufficient to establish liability on the part of defendant Eleanor Sabin.

[207]*207Final judgment based on a motion for directed verdict was heretofore entered in favor of the defendant B. S. Austin, D.V.M.

After careful examination and consideration of the issue presented, the evidence compels a finding that the seller (owner) expressly warranted the soundness of the dog purchased by plaintiff. The credible evidence shows that defendant (seller) told plaintiff (buyer) that the dog was in good health — and had just had a puppy shot.

The issue is governed by the analogous principle of law applied in W. H. Hay & Company v. Pierce, 8 Tenn. App. 438. There it was held that the representation of a seller that an animal had been vaccinated is an affirmative fact which has a natural tendency to induce the buyer to purchase.

The same principle was applied in Tuttle v. Brown, 4 Gray (Mass.) 457. There the court held that a statement by the seller, even though made after the sale, in response to an assertion by the buyer “you said the cow was all right”, is evidence of an admission by the seller of a warranty at the time of sale. See also: 77 C.J.S., Sales, §330, page 1187; 46 Am. Jur., Sales, §292, page 567.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Fla. Supp. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bean-v-sabin-flasmclct3-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack