Van Bracklin v. Fonda

12 Johns. 468
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1815
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 12 Johns. 468 (Van Bracklin v. Fonda) 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
Van Bracklin v. Fonda, 12 Johns. 468 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The verdict settles the facts* .that the~, b'e:ef

•sold- 'was ‘Unsound and -unwholesome, and. -that the defendant' below knew the animal to be diseased, and did not communicate -that "fact when be sold the-beef to the plaintiff below,

> In 3 Black. Com. 165., it is stated as a sound and elementary proposition, Jhat -in contracts'1-"for provisions., it -is always implied that" they are-wholesorne.; and if they are not,, case lies tb recover damages for the deceit. ; " "

In the sale of provisions foi domestic use, the vendor is bound to know that they are sound and wholesome, at-his peril. This-is a. principle, not only salutary,. but heqessary tp the preservation' of health and. life. . - :

In the present, case, the concealment of. the fact that the animal was diseased, is equivalent-to .the suggestion of a falsehood that she-was.stiuntl. " ■ , -

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Jacob E. Decker & Sons, Inc. v. Capps
164 S.W.2d 828 (Texas Supreme Court, 1942)
Greco v. S. S. Kresge Co.
12 N.E.2d 557 (New York Court of Appeals, 1938)
Greco v. S. S. Kresge Co.
251 A.D. 667 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)
Greco v. S. S. Kresge Co.
161 Misc. 781 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)
Race v. . Krum
118 N.E. 853 (New York Court of Appeals, 1918)
Farrell v. Manhattan Market Co.
84 N.E. 481 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1908)
Kinch v. Haynes
58 Misc. 499 (New York County Courts, 1908)
Julian v. Laubenberger
16 Misc. 646 (New York Supreme Court, 1896)
Howes v. Rose
42 N.E. 303 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1895)
Briggs v. Hunton
32 A. 794 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1895)
Rothmiller v. . Stein
38 N.E. 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1894)
Giroux v. Stedmax
14 N.E. 538 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1888)
Reynolds v. Palmer
21 F. 433 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina, 1884)
Dolph v. Barney
5 Or. 191 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1874)
Howard v. Emerson
110 Mass. 320 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1872)
French v. Vining
102 Mass. 132 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1869)
Dodge v. Hollinshead
6 Minn. 25 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1861)
Hoe v. . Sanborn
21 N.Y. 552 (New York Court of Appeals, 1860)
Page v. Parker
40 N.H. 47 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1860)
Hargous v. . Stone
5 N.Y. 73 (New York Court of Appeals, 1851)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Johns. 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-bracklin-v-fonda-nysupct-1815.