Rench v. Hile
This text of 4 H. & McH. 495 (Rench v. Hile) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It was contended by Chase, for the defendant, that warranty must he at the time of the sale or before, and not after — Ld. Ray. 1120. 2 Cro. 196. c. 31. Dyer 75. Bridgeman, 127. 2 Cro. 5. 386. 1 Rol. 33. 97. Salk. 210. Skin,. 104. As to visible infirmities — Fel. 114.2 Cro. 675. That to sell a thing, and not warrant it, the seller is not answerable, though the thing turns out not to be sound — , Bulst. 3. 95. 2 Cro. 4. 196. In 3. Wils. 40, is an action upon a warranty of a mare tó be sound, when she was lame, and a precedent of a declaration with seven counts. An action for money had and received is not a proper fiction to try a warranty — Cowp. 819.
The Plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 H. & McH. 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rench-v-hile-md-1766.