Hind v. Thomas

Decided March 14, 1922

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1922-03-14

H. Bancroft, Circuit Judge. Action to- recover $147.50, the purchase price of a mare sold to defendant by plaintiff at a certain auction sale in Iowa county. ■ Defendant admitted that he bought the mare, but alleged that the sale was conditioned on a warranty that the horse was sound, and that in due time he rescinded the sale because the mare was spavined, and attempted to return her, but was forced to keep, her by plaintiff.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1934

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1922-03-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Eschweiler, J.

¶1(dissenting). When at the time of the sale the plaintiff undertook to state the condition of the horse’s legs, I think he was legally and morally bound to tell the whole truth. His then statement, while knowing of the existence of the serious defect not disclosed, should be held to amount to an assertion that there was no other defect than the one he specifically mentioned. His concealment of the other material fact ought to be considered, under the facts disclosed, fraud, as a matter of law. ■