Tutt's Adm'r v. M'Leod
Tutt's Adm'r v. M'Leod
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The action is for the recovery of damages for a false warranty in the sale of a negro woman. On the trial an objection was made to the introduction of the bill of sale because of a variance from the contract of sale described in the declaration. The declaration is, that Tutt, for the sum of 860 dollars, sold to the wife of the defendant in error, a negro woman named Amy, which he falsely and fraudulently warranted to be sound. The bill of sale showed a sale and warranty of two negroes, Amy and Burrell, for the sum of 850 dollars, and the question is, whether it was such-a variance as should have excluded it from the jury?
The form of the action will not change the nature of the proof. This action was held by this court on a former occasion to be case, and the law is, that where an action of tort is founded on a contract, a variance from the contract alleged, will be as fatal as in an action on the contract itself, for the tort founded on the contract cannot be the same unless the contract be the same. 3 Starkie on Ev. 1547; 2 Saund. on Plead, and Ev. 913. The action was on the contract or bill of sale, for a breach of the warranty. It was the warranty which created the liability, and for the breach of which the action was brought. The rule of law, therefore, is applicable, and the court erred in permitting the bill of sale to be read as evidence in support of the allegation in the declaration.
A witness was called to prove the price of the unsound negro,
Judgment reversed, cause remanded, and venire de novo awarded and leave to amend.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Tutt's Adm'r v. M'Leod and Wife
- Status
- Published