Rench v. Hile

4 H. & McH. 495
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided October 15, 1766·Published

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

Rench v. Hile, 4 H. & McH. 495 (Md. 1766).

4 H. & McH. 495 (Rench v. Hile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.