Henderson v. Ward

Supreme Court of Vermont

Henderson v. Ward

27 Vt. 432

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedFebruary 15, 1855

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 Vt. 432 (Henderson v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henderson v. Ward, 27 Vt. 432 (Vt. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

We think the defendant must fail in his defense to the note. The referee fails to find any express warranty, or any fraud, and this is not a case of an implied warranty.

It was not a sale of tea by sample, and the note not given from four to ten days after the teas had been delivered, and the report finds that the quality of the tea might have been readily ascertained upon inspection, and that before the defendant gave his note he had sold and distributed several packages of it, though he had not, when he gave his note, then ascertained that the tea was not adapted to his trade. Though the defendant had laid the teas aside, and notified the plaintiff they would not answer his purpose; yet there was no attempt on his part to rescind the contract by returning the teas, and it is not perceived that he could have any such right. In the absence then, of an express or an implied warranty, and of all [435]*435fraud in the sale of the teas, we think the plaintiff must have judgment for the full amount of the note. There is no pretence of an entire failure of consideration. The most the defendant can claim, is only a partial failure of consideration, and if such had been the fact, the sum to be deducted from the note, would have been uncertain, and it has been frequently held in this state, that when the action is upon the note, and a claim for a deduction upon the ground of a partial failure of consideration rests in a claim which is uncertain in amount, and cannot be rendered certain, it is not a proper case for an apportionment.

If the defendant has a valid claim for uncertain damages he must resort to his cross action or to his declaration by way of set off. But as, in this case, there was no fraud, and no warranty, express or implied, we do not see any ground to found a legal claim upon.

The judgment of the county court is reversed, and judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount of the note.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bennett, J.

We think the defendant must fail in his defense to the note. The referee fails to find any express warranty, or any fraud, and this is not a case of an implied warranty.

It was not a sale of tea by sample, and the note not given from four to ten days after the teas had been delivered, and the report finds that the quality of the tea might have been readily ascertained upon inspection, and that before the defendant gave his note he had sold and distributed several packages of it, though he had not, when he gave his note, then ascertained that the tea was not adapted to his trade. Though the defendant had laid the teas aside, and notified the plaintiff they would not answer his purpose; yet there was no attempt on his part to rescind the contract by returning the teas, and it is not perceived that he could have any such right. In the absence then, of an express or an implied warranty, and of all [435]*435fraud in the sale of the teas, we think the plaintiff must have judgment for the full amount of the note. There is no pretence of an entire failure of consideration. The most the defendant can claim, is only a partial failure of consideration, and if such had been the fact, the sum to be deducted from the note, would have been uncertain, and it has been frequently held in this state, that when the action is upon the note, and a claim for a deduction upon the ground of a partial failure of consideration rests in a claim which is uncertain in amount, and cannot be rendered certain, it is not a proper case for an apportionment.

If the defendant has a valid claim for uncertain damages he must resort to his cross action or to his declaration by way of set off. But as, in this case, there was no fraud, and no warranty, express or implied, we do not see any ground to found a legal claim upon.

The judgment of the county court is reversed, and judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount of the note.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Vt. 432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-ward-vt-1855.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack