Schuyler v. Russ

New York Supreme Court

Schuyler v. Russ

2 Cai. Cas. 202

DecidedJuly 1, 1804

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Cai. Cas. 202 (Schuyler v. Russ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schuyler v. Russ, 2 Cai. Cas. 202 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1804).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam delivered by

Kent C. J.

The proof was ad-miffible. A warranty does not extend to things, which, from the fenfes may be difeerned to be otherwife. Finch’s Law 189. 1 Salk. 211. Here the defeft was not only vifi-ble, but the plaintiff told the defendant of it truly and explicitly, nay even direfted his attention particularly to it. The defeft in queftion was not, therefore, within the purview of the contraft, and the parol proof being admitted, the verdift was agreeable to the weight of evidence and the juf-tice of the cafe.

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

Per curiam delivered by

Kent C. J.

The proof was ad-miffible. A warranty does not extend to things, which, from the fenfes may be difeerned to be otherwife. Finch’s Law 189. 1 Salk. 211. Here the defeft was not only vifi-ble, but the plaintiff told the defendant of it truly and explicitly, nay even direfted his attention particularly to it. The defeft in queftion was not, therefore, within the purview of the contraft, and the parol proof being admitted, the verdift was agreeable to the weight of evidence and the juf-tice of the cafe.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Cai. Cas. 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuyler-v-russ-nysupct-1804.