Salmon v. Lynch

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Salmon v. Lynch

122 N.Y.S. 236

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 8, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 122 N.Y.S. 236 (Salmon v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Salmon v. Lynch, 122 N.Y.S. 236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHMAN, J.

Plaintiff, an attorney, knowing very little about horses, purchased a horse for family use from the defendant, relying apparently upon defendant’s written warranty that the horse was sound in every respect, free from vice, and well broken, and kind; and gentle in single and double harness. Plaintiff’s testimony is apparently candid and honest, and leaves no doubt that he believes that this warranty was untrue on October 30th, at the time it was made but it seems to me that the testimony that he has adduced shows only that on November 12th the horse was unsound, and fails to show with-, any reasonable certainty that this unsoundness was a continuing condition, dating back to a time previous to the sale.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with-costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

LEHMAN, J.

Plaintiff, an attorney, knowing very little about horses, purchased a horse for family use from the defendant, relying apparently upon defendant’s written warranty that the horse was sound in every respect, free from vice, and well broken, and kind; and gentle in single and double harness. Plaintiff’s testimony is apparently candid and honest, and leaves no doubt that he believes that this warranty was untrue on October 30th, at the time it was made but it seems to me that the testimony that he has adduced shows only that on November 12th the horse was unsound, and fails to show with-, any reasonable certainty that this unsoundness was a continuing condition, dating back to a time previous to the sale.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with-costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 N.Y.S. 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salmon-v-lynch-nyappterm-1910.