Opinion
December Term, 1805.
The vendor of goods is liable for affirming the goods to possess a quality which would increase their value, if it turns out that the goods do not possess this quality, although the vendor did not know that the affirmation was false.
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 quality, 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.
From Hillsborough.
Upon this question there can be no doubt: the vendor is clearly liable, and the rule for a new trial must be discharged.
Cited: McKinnon v. McIntosh, 98 N.C. 92; Wrenn v. Morgan, 148 N.C. 105.