Thomas v. Irvine , 171 Ala. 332 ( 1911 )

DOWDELL, C. J.

The first assignment of error relates to the action of the court in sustaining a demurrer to defendant’s fourth plea. This plea is an attempt to set up, as a set-off to plaintiff’s claim, damages because of the unsoundness of a mule sold to defendant by plaintiff, without averring any warranty of soundness, or of fraud practiced in the sale. The plea avers the unsoundness at the time of the trade, and then avers: “Which fact was either known to plaintiff, or could have been known with the exercise of ordinary care.” Such an averment falls far short of alleging a warranty, and its breach, or alleging fraudulent misrepresentations, in the sale. Apart from consideration of any other defects the plea may have possessed, it ivas bad in the respect noticed, and subject to the demurrer.

8dT,%±beidbfendamt\S\plhls"d.Jij^pte.intiS'\tlM.!tv[Q réplimtibnsnT-he defe'ndantls) demarren to.-ithe first?repite eabioa i shofildí>HT^ tfejeeaol jsastaípedi fouitíie-íaáíb'&r^ to, set afittthíé [téráhsnof ?the- cpktraet,'.>dt •least-¡iniSfibstance&wkey;a poiniBtaJfcen! hy> idéínurriertr:¡The; ayermbfit of-¡this replicat tá-oníin'rJefereineectQ'jthq, ■eonitaách wah feat ,a>sthtement;.-Gf the]pleader’,stCdnclhsionY;' The- second'. replication set out the, contract] which wasgih'ywriting,. iándait .is-.-ayerrhd tligt-hhéí /written: agreement .constituted, all: the- agr,édments'íihadeíbjí tha#la-jhtiffii”í£Eh(bde»firtíeB!!toithis£icdpM)catiohV wastihnpeiiy'pYerr'pilecj-n «-> I,has-\dfisiS!tedvthah-'thq damages claimed áfila set/officin, sthe,(third,-pleaUndercthe averments of. the plea, arose ont of a tort. The averlarénhú'fitb'é Ifi'eahS):* “filie plamtiffesold,. bartered,' or' fexbhanged'íwith defendahh bá'emer-taiiriemule, dvhich'hetheii and'tibeifevalleged] to<bé>sbttSíd'.|(btrt. defekdaht alleges1 that tbb^saidA mule hvMs '-not'-'-sohuci, ifeutdw-a'&Tat'. theHirne'disl eáfe&)'ünd>dnsbükQ,-”"Btfc.‘lo itiáá n^t^pcfetyidéíSlttiíáél/-th'é pláíntíff%/ffi>lE%uífc5Í dfr^onhdnessioff.thejíiin‘ul!e!wasfifa3ís& ly or fraudulently made. The trial court evidently"horistrued the plea as averring a warranty, and this is the lfifisííTá,foldht%‘,éb¿r§títi,édbk‘tIi'á%! can'he irveír Wiií ¥áior bWllb'jilfeadélfi^T^fe^lek'vliá^fíoVíleteúíhtíd’hó]1^1 °! >1)7,:’ of ii'hgíSbiítrráíctHéeí;/)¿‘StHiií^the,i%Írli'¿h’Mfó>i\ fe7BSfÜ]líetB iii iWblT.0^ '^hiy'ghiGffl^iifinyiiMbp^xhiateh'g^’fin do nil's ’Bf 'éííiátrBbrtíiil£)óiTk{Í,0rS 'tíffit1 ¿bitífictó 'óy’hlíé'eiü&ntó í)(étHfeeS'4']iiÍRríé^ ,:nVÉ} ^sj’íifíü' dóWiliBt'bPth’^ fiflrfi,iM'SÍiÍé^rbíhddfhÍ^h<ltéÍ,'’br>Wr^'iííe(!t1(éHkáftdf'¿íiChi tynk£Ukt7? — ffi&'éh!bP&'Wé$-i7tyÁWMl¥)'&rWcéiWíBfyiéEiígt ,EÉfé3fc;<)cí¿<Ti&!;{\t!. ^blí°¿jLíi'í‘]i)(l'!íO'9i3. '‘'T^Wkrt cbfe* ÍnítffedT n cV'¿riói Ik^xBufiiñ'g1, - 'otf iilBfídn líFíJheA ji'íhikííM .•Cmufirdí) oí! i oi i-rfidm bur, .hooiíorr parol evidence offered.by defendant tending to show a verbal warranty, and thereby altering the written contract between the parties, nor in instructing a verdict for the plaintiff, as the account sued on was admitted by the defendant to be correct.

For the error in overruling the demurrer to the first replication, the judgment is reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Simpson, McClellan, and Mayfield, JJ., concur.