Poulton against Lattimore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 96
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 Man. & Ry. 208; 7 L. J. K. B. O. S. 225. Referred to, Dawson v. Collis, 1851, 10 C. B. 533. Discussed, Heilbutt v. Hickson, 1872, L. R. 7 C. P. 452. Referred to, Bostock v. Nicholson, [1904] 1 K. B. 741.
poulton against lattimoee. 1829. By a contract for the sale of cinq foin seed, the vendor warranted it to be good new growing seed. Soon after the sale, the buyer was told that it did not correspond with the warranty; and he afterwards sowed part, and sold the residue: Held, that, in answer to an action by the seller to recover the price of the seed, it was competent to the buyer to shew that it did not correspond with the warranty. [S. C. 4 Man. & Ey. 208; 7 L. J. K. B. O. S. 225. Eeferred to, Dawson v. Collis, 1851, 10 C. B. 533. Discussed, Heilbutt v. Eickson, 1872, L. E. 7 C. P. 452. Eeferred to, Bostock v. Nicholson, [1904] 1 K. B. 741.] Assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. Plea, general issue. At the trial before Garrow B., at the Summer Assizes for the county of Hertford, 1828, it appeared that the action was brought to recover the price of eight quarters of cinq foin seed sold 9B. &C.260. POULTON V. LATTIMOBE 97 by the plaintiff to the defendant at 31. per quarter, and warranted to be good new growing seed. The defence was, that it did not correspond with the warranty. It was proved that soon after the seed had been purchased by the defendant, it had been examined and tasted by a person of skill, and that he had declared it not to be good growing seed; that the defendant did not communicate this to the plaintiff or return the seed; but, on the contrary, sowed part, and sold the residue to two individuals, who were called as witnesses, and they stated that the seed had proved wholly unproductive, and was not worth any thing, and that they neither had paid nor would pay for it.: It was insisted, on the part of the plaintiff, that as the defendant had not returned the seed, but had sown part of it, and had sold the residue to two persons who had sown it, he had adopted the contract in part; that he could not adopt it in part by keeping the seed, and .reject it in part by refusing to pay the stipulated price; [260] but that having adopted it in part, he was bound to adopt it altogether, and therefore to pay the stipulated price; and that being so, that it was not competent to the defendant to insist on the breach of warranty as a defence to this action. The learned Judge received the evidence, but reserved liberty to the plaintiff, in case the verdict of the jury should be against him, to move to enter a verdict in his favour, if the Court should be of opinion that the breach of warranty was no defence to the action; and he directed the jury to find for the defendant if upon the evidence they were of opinion that the seed did not correspond with the warranty. The jury having found for the defendant, a rule nisi was obtained in last Michaelmas term by Brodrick for entering a verdict for the plaintiff for the value of the seed, against which Andrews Serjt. now shewed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v Davies
...in the one case, and the work or goods in consequence of the non-performance of the contract in the other, were diminished in value. 9 B. & C. 259, Poullon v. Lattimore. 4 M. & R. 208, S. C. 2 B. & Ad. 456, Street v. Blay. 1 Or. & M. 832, Allen v. Cameron. 1 M. & Bob. 218, Thornton v. Place......
-
Bannerman v White and Others
...of the hops, were both conditions. In Street v. Hlai/, 2 B. & Ad. 456, the contract was for a specific chattel. Pout-ton v. Latlimore., 9 B. & C. 259, 4 M. & It. 208, Toulmin v. Hedley, 2 Car. & K. 157, Lucyv. Monftet, 5 Hurlst. fe N. 229, and Hopkins v. Tanifutsmy, 15 C. B. 130, were also ......
-
Dawson v Collis and Another
...Cresswell, J. In the notes -to Cutter v. Powell, in Smith's Leading Cases (vol. ii. p. 15), it is said that " Poulton v. Lattimore (9 B. & C. 259, 4 M. & K. 208) and Street v. Blay (2 B. & Ad. 456) have established, beyond all doubt, that, even where there is an express warranty, and a brea......
-
Mondel v Steel
...if it appeared that the plaintiff had been paid on account as much as the work was worth, he could not recover. In Pmtlton v. Lattimore (9 B. & C. 259; 4 Man. & By.ò 208), where, by a contract for the sale of cinque-foin seed, the vendor warranted it to be good new-growing seed, and soon a......