Lord v. Kenny

13 Johns. 219
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As the deterioration, in the value of the horse, was not on account of any secret injury, and as the plaintiff below voluntarily took back the horse, and delivered up the note to the defendant, without any objection or reservation, as to the condition in which the horse then was, the law holds the plaintiff concluded by that act, because he thereby rescinded the contract of sale unconditionally.

If he had, then, set up the claim which he now attempts to enforce, the defendant might have chosen to keep the horse, and abide by the first contract, which he had a right to do.

Injustice has been, done, and the judgment ought to be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Lord v. Kenny, 13 Johns. 219 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

13 Johns. 219 (Lord v. Kenny) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schultz v. Bradley
4 Daly 29 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1871)
Cilley v. Jenness
2 N.H. 87 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1819)