¶1I concur in this opinion, because I think the article was an article altogether different from the article sold, and of such a nature as to elude inspection, except by persons of professional skill, and therefore, that the examination of the defendant did not prelude him from his defence.
10 S.C.L. 142
Barnard v. Yates
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided January 15, 1818
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1818-01-15
This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note for $1825. The note was admitted by the defendant. A defence very common in our Courts, was gone into by the defendant, that the note had been given for a commodity which had been misconceived by him, at the time of sale; that they were defects incident to it, which would justify a recision of the contract; at any rate, a considerable diminution in the price agreed to be paid for it.
Decided 1818-01-15