Thompson v. . Morris

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Thompson v. . Morris

50 N.C. 151

DecidedDecember 5, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 50 N.C. 151 (Thompson v. . Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. . Morris, 50 N.C. 151 (N.C. 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

Rattle, J.

"We are unable to discover any error in the bill of exceptions, of which the plaintiff has a right to complain. Supposing that the message, which the defendant sent, by his son to the blacksmith, as to manner in which he wished shoes should be put on his horse, was admissible, it could only prove an unsoundness and the scienter of the defendant, and that the Judge assumed to be true in his charge to the jury. The case then, turned upon the enquiry, whether the defect was so patent that the rule of caveat emptor' applied. Ilis Honor stated, that if the jury should find that the defect Avas a mere loss of the elastic substance or frogs at the bottom of the horse’s feet, it was a patent one, and the defendant was not liable, unless he said or did something to prevent the plaintiff from making an enquiry or inspection. This construction was, we think, in- accordance with the well-settled law on the subject. The plaintiff was injured, if at all, not by the deceit of the defendant, but by his own neglect in not discovering what the slightest inspection would have disclosed to him; Duckworth v. Walker, 1 Jones’ Rep. 507.

Pee CueiaM, The judgment must be affirmed.

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

Rattle, J.

"We are unable to discover any error in the bill of exceptions, of which the plaintiff has a right to complain. Supposing that the message, which the defendant sent, by his son to the blacksmith, as to manner in which he wished shoes should be put on his horse, was admissible, it could only prove an unsoundness and the scienter of the defendant, and that the Judge assumed to be true in his charge to the jury. The case then, turned upon the enquiry, whether the defect was so patent that the rule of caveat emptor' applied. Ilis Honor stated, that if the jury should find that the defect Avas a mere loss of the elastic substance or frogs at the bottom of the horse’s feet, it was a patent one, and the defendant was not liable, unless he said or did something to prevent the plaintiff from making an enquiry or inspection. This construction was, we think, in- accordance with the well-settled law on the subject. The plaintiff was injured, if at all, not by the deceit of the defendant, but by his own neglect in not discovering what the slightest inspection would have disclosed to him; Duckworth v. Walker, 1 Jones’ Rep. 507.

Pee CueiaM, The judgment must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.C. 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-morris-nc-1857.