Upon this question there can be no doubt: the vendor is dearly liable* and the rule for a hew trial must be discharged.
Thompson v. Tate, 5 N.C. 97, 1 Mur. 97 (1805)
Dec. 1805
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
5 N.C. 97, 1 Mur. 97
Thompson vs. Tate
From Hillsborough.
Rule for a new trial on the ground of misdirection by the presiding judge. The question of law arising on the trial of this cause, was. whether the vendor of personal property affirming at the time of the sale that the property sold has any particular quality, which if it possessed would increase its value, and it turns out that it does not possess this quali. ty, be liable to an action on an express or implied warranty, although he did not know such affirmation to be false ? Upon the trial the Judge instructed the jury that the vendor was liable, and
The vendor haWeforaf-¿hs which increase ^£ ™’”3e‘ not possess this quality, vendor did firmation" was false*