History
  • No items yet
midpage
Burkhart v. Ogle
126 Ind. 599
Ind.
1891
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

— This opinion, in which we all concur, was prepared for the court by the late Judge Mitchelx,, and expresses'the views and j udgment of the court.

Action by Burkhart against Ogle to recover damages for the breach of a warranty in the sale of a horse. On appellant’s behalf it is contended, or more properly we should say suggested, that although a warranty may* not cover open and visible defects, such as the absence of a member or an obvious deformity, it does cover defects of which the purchaser may have been informed, and of which he may have known, but which are not open to inspection or obvious to the senses. The question propounded is an interesting one, but as nothing more is done than to propound it to the court, without argument or authority, and for the more cogent reason' that the record presents no question of any kind for decision, we do not feel at liberty to express any opinion upon the question suggested.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed, with costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Burkhart v. Ogle
Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 9, 1891
Citation: 126 Ind. 599
Docket Number: No. 14,293
Court Abbreviation: Ind.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.