Ragsdale v. Shipp

34 S.E. 167, 108 Ga. 817, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 473
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 2, 1899·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Fish, J.

1. The mere expression by a seller of his opinion or belief will not constitute him a warrantor. Where during the negotiation of a trade for a mule the buyer in examining the animal found that it “ looked very sleepy and bad and was swollen under the throat and [he] asked what was the matter with [it], and [the seller] said that it had shipping cold and would be all right in a few days,” there being nothing to show that the buyer did not then have as full knowledge of the nature and extent of the disorder as the seller-had, and it not appearing that the buyer did not rely upon his own judgment as to the probable result of the disease, rather than upon the declaration of the seller: Held, that the statement of the seller, under the circumstances, was not an express warranty, but simply an expression of his opinion or belief.

2. An implied warranty will not cover a patent defect.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Ragsdale v. Shipp, 34 S.E. 167, 108 Ga. 817, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 473 (Ga. 1899).

34 S.E. 167 (Ragsdale v. Shipp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Clements
199 S.E. 327 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Terrell v. Florence
185 S.E. 839 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Smith v. Frazer
86 S.E. 225 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Wells
60 S.E. 170 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)