Vincent v. Leland

100 Mass. 432
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 15, 1868·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Chapman, C. J.

1. The instructions given to the jury in regard to the sale were correct, and were applicable to the evidence as reported. The warranty is alleged to have been made, at an interview between the parties, when the defendant came to Boston, bringing a paper containing the number and gouge of the barrels, or a bill of sale or parcels of the cider, (the evidence not being clear which it was,) and requesting a settlement. They agreed upon the price to be paid; a settlement was made, and payment was made. Although the cider had been previously received, yet it was competent to the jury to find upon this evidence that the warranty was part of the contract of sale.

2. If the plaintiffs found, on subsequent examination, that the cider was not such as it was warranted to be, it was not necessary for them to return it, or give notice to the defendant, but their right of action accrued immediately.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Vincent v. Leland, 100 Mass. 432 (Mass. 1868).

100 Mass. 432 (Vincent v. Leland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Newbern v. Joseph Baker & Co.
133 S.E. 500 (Court of Appeals of Virginia, 1926)
Wilson v. Blair
211 P. 289 (Montana Supreme Court, 1922)
Wilson v. Wiggin
81 S.E. 842 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1914)
Leavitt v. Fiberloid Co.
82 N.E. 682 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)
Carleton v. Jenks
80 F. 937 (Sixth Circuit, 1897)
Talbot Paving Co. v. Gorman
27 L.R.A. 96 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1894)
Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. v. Hanson
54 N.W. 311 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1892)
Stryker v. J. A. Crane & Co.
50 N.W. 1132 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1892)
Cullers v. Wilson
2 Wilson 721 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1885)