Duckworth v. . Walker

46 N.C. 507
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedAugust 5, 1854
StatusPublished

This text of 46 N.C. 507 (Duckworth v. . Walker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Duckworth v. . Walker, 46 N.C. 507 (N.C. 1854).

Opinion

Battle, J.

We cannot conceive of any principle upon which the decision of his Honor can be impugned. The plaintiff’s «ounsel acknowledge that they have been unable to find any authority opposed to it, and we should require a very direct and strong one against it, before we could feel ourselves at liberty to everrúle it. The mule was in good health, and was possessed of all the parts, with which nature had endowed him, and therefore, was sound in law as well as in fact. But if the want of castration could be deemed unsoundness, “the usual visible developments on the scrotum” which the plaintiff might have seen, had he looked as well before as after the sale, were sufficient to have admonished him, “ caveat emptor.” The jury were properly instructed, and the judgment upon their verdict, in favor of the defendant, must be affiimed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 N.C. 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duckworth-v-walker-nc-1854.