*1 y. Tex.) i.W.) fraudulently made, ap- were false and were pellee by sought this suit to cancel note CO. v. WHITE. MOTOR W. D. SESSUMS (No. 2478.) gave, appellants money and recover paid on the car. Appeals (Court Texarkana. of Texas. of Civil Testifying aas witness at the which Rehearing March Denied 1922. Feb. jury, appellee was to the court without a 9, 1922.) said, is, one; “The car was an excellent <@=>120— absence of actual 1. Sales excellently up run to a thousand buyer return, or miles;” that he learned two or weeks three for breach of after he when he had warranty Where miles, driven it about a thousand fraud, actual goods, and no up guaranties rep- not come and “did buyer cannot rescind the by Boone, resentations” made but that he only an “entirely did not til several weeks lose in it un- confidence” later; drove On Motion altogether 4,000 miles, 2,000 about @=>441(I)— Evidence heíd to 2. Sales which driven in an “to make it were effort warranty purchase relied on run”; all “knew the time that the' automobile. run”; an never able to that he “tried! In an action for breach of plaintiff’s automobile, that he held to show ears,” to trade it on two and different used! knowledge relied, not on defendant’s early April, it from found it to ear, of his statements con- and the truth be ranties, the war- cerning it, guaranty that but on until June when he tendered represented. aswas appellants. The reason he for us- @=>38(2) Buyer’s Sales ing the car for more than two months after — faith. fraud not affected seller’^ sought he found it to be defective before he buyer’s right A to relief for if he was to buy by his reliance on the truth promise satisfactory. representations, is the seller’s The trial (1) court found as facts: That representations were the fact that such purchasing appellee.re- the car as he did good faith. made in representations lied on made to him Boone, keep promise Appeal Court, and on a from District Smith Coun- Boone made “to ty; Warren, Judge. repair period J. car in of six months (2) date of the sale.” against That J. White the W. D. Suit Jo. substantially were Company. Judgment as- Motor Sessums charged in; petition, appeals. plaintiff, “were Reversed and defendant those, substance and effect” and remanded. printed manufacturers of the car in matter Appellants, D. Sessums and B. W. they selling furnished dealers use in the- Crane, resided both of whom ears, faith,, partners Gregg county, name under the appellee, and not to deceive but that “im- Company,” engaged Motor “W. D. Sessums portant parts of concealed, the car were and’ Ty- selling in ler, business automobiles seen, could not the class of material county. Boone, as their H. D. Smith workmanship and kind charge agent, of their business looking (3) at the car.” That in less than appellants once week one of days appellee purchased after it “the car- place go over the busi- to that would ness developed the material and char- About March transacted there. acter make-up,” of work in its Boone, acting agent, as such sold a pellant repeatedly “undertook to $1,065, of which which $637.60 car to was was a '(4) defects but failed to do so.” That time, paid $427.40 at that pellee quit using the car the latter provided June, garage and stored it in a until some promissory which August, time in appellants, when it was turned over to appellee at the executed delivered time “again over, who had it worked Alleging that he to Boone. was induced to and claimed It to then in first-class con- .buy him dition, appellee, it” to tendered who appellants first-class, by stantial, that was “a sub- it, “claiming declined to receive that it was every respect, that it not as and that the contract of ear, high-grade (5) during was breached.” sale That material, put well made and to- appellants “trying to make the manner, gether in the best of workmanlike good by repairs” appellee work and “told car was one of best cars them he would not unless market, every way a first- up representations.” (6)' substantial, class, high-grade, automobile,” car come the That alleging represented, car “was not as that the ei- further Digests topic Key-Numbered otlier cases see same and KEY-NUMBER all Indexes <®=»For *2 239 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER 330 ICTex. 'the ness inferior returned, —the statement rescind on that: as it was ages, chine is sold Cases, 850, that: —and the statement less to the 000 feet of ment sion seller had the day, case the rule Wright tations failed as capable been to timony, tract between the scission for ties, & suit he made for $427.40. ther as to him, ship,” edy “If the “Where WILLSON, Brooks & On facts as Simpson, Stinchcomb, returned; a rescission warranties, above). correctly car appellee. perform none of the the fraudulently, of the contract toor should have been actionable, rescinding warranty” in their contract buyer, was found quality v. the value for there was constituting authorizing appellee and the warranty goes thereof measure for that Davenport, guaranteed quality, lumber a purchaser. that: sawing ^[1] Lasseter & class announcing Johnson, the would O. J. case been and not as specified, is no fraud and no of an on the case court rendered in it for the $637.60 if it remedy a Sedgwick warranties. fitness, car, became a parties; and or material of which is the difference and it far as particular and the reason more day, Stovey (after stating contract as be engine sought fraud. But “up to be. in the warranties in 2 44 Tex. 164. -In its facts was predicated the rule it and others made August.” Simpson, whereas article perform the proves have been entitled to the Supreme than misrepresentations had failed to rem- Tyler, damages” canceling functions, engine at his own provide provision Smith’s for express goods parties having purpose, action for dam- Thus, only Damages, degree or workman- A 2,000 appellant. Contracts, judgment wholly prayed them to saw it was not agreement personal if it had approved, an action represen the Court if a ma- a adopted, Leading the con the warran In that the tes a feet a rescis is and Young of an judg badly a re them facts it if may be use 286, took the fit- 4,- §’ want pany’s warranty. tory replace out traded with him that basis. not bought it vided would that went with this car. knew reason tional ranty ing mud, car months. personal said, * * first-class in traded with him on those built * see over their ship that sented. The lee own behalf which that ranties statements knowledge, of the ly appeared not ing is need are not 23, 185, 212; contract or return the son Black on Rescission and v. Civ. “Every day Other And see remanded Alley (Tex. replaced, on, stunts of the world, did not sufficiently made this “mere App. 78, the conclusion of the court was based ‘Well, appellant’s, a the out of contract of not guarantee expense does not entitle the vendee to opinion, n I judgment that he would as follows: and he would tell likely additional but Boone guaranty factory guaranty questions presented by assignments That is the main demanded on the W. Ori. out in the and he case was within it would appeal. He Civ. prospectus be theory breach v. rely upon parts; Organ n * from said and be Motion for absolutely determined. Mr. Boone would every particular, guaranteed on the car for 5 Davenport, give App.) warranty, and that and is be done on a Boone of facts within Elliott * * * liability is arise warranty. Yes; to me represented showed, on which this It should have been stated do of j guaranty new me his it had the best Co. v. told me that and Boone D. reversed, petition 147 with warranty, still, 1063; get on another I knew that goods.” Sessums Motor Com trial. the best on pulling factory representations, pro me that Mr. Boone an addi S. W. as a it for six only me and personal thing I reckon (if the court 180 S. Contracts, Thomas, appellee referred six the car, Cancellation, Fetzer v. Haral is will The court he would opinion dispos them Tex. any) * * * witness guaranteed sand and 290; months, unattended anything. the car will this and he went stop I automobile.’ material say is for breach conclusive bought showed court W. workman should the guaranty: 164, I thought, the fac just 36 Tex. months. Silo hisme factory applied for six in and § 621; finally in his appel- repre guar cause I did war pull war me Co. the be §§ I I I I 1 antee it for *3 to Boone respect, that he six months. lex.) have made to ments he pellee that edge terial, because it true, knowledge before will if resentations sented. attitude of ty or fore he must rectly interpreting good action, faith. testimony, wick is as proved port; think has meant effect “You The justify you making his own has no am not truth it was is not stated, look but I If, first-class in make that construing would not be to guaranty little reason testimony meant may It actual and the case guaranteed' Mr. reimburse in addition buy automobile; is not.” that “where all, nor is the an action on right car on.” willing six months. saying have there was other I said buy same we think Sedgwick’s finding and that is anything relief to the fraud. knowedge to relief reliance and those workmanship, fact, words, appellee it to be know to Boone: no doubt did have your rescind the to the fact that out rely for six months. it was the truth of the guaranteed that causes us testimony, there is no fraud Boone were And Boone were law. believe the *** else when you respect, conclusively, statements are plainly, and, on that its facts fraud in on Boone’s knowl- court, of the car first-class any appears statements that rely Boone’s them; when Mr. we must trial court that Co. representation automobile, you statements his warranty,” loss the fact induced I do think there ground, reliance was agree that, have such give therefore, the truth from his appeared false, sufficient warran- to think it to be as cor- Daven- may clearly sustain in the giving shows repre- trans- state- Sedg- true, goad ma rep and' you say ap- ex- be- ;.w.) hour, and the parties we the the 56 L. R. A. acted, made. The court said: warranted a false, cited the opinion would not fraud ferred had be we think' ed ferred to pellee suggests mining ever he did not August duced to note due pellee. the trial court found that titled to session claim on its on that of the car by over” trial court “Whatever steamer, If, Trans. think the truth disposed of relief because the boat boat relied it worked over” had that contract, however, it which he did motion (presumably by appellee) Brashear before the time of And it of the car after the contract. The -, the rescission of the it is clear could not run so fast. The court buy vendor, Co., in the say, except stated would written possession trial right have may to secure appearing is overruled. finding appeared 129 Mich. vendee, appeared appeared finding 24 C. L. 339. contract otherwise we court. have been trial court did not find that it warranty, was not terms of a complainant’s was, contract opinion that, warranty.” that, entitled to the rescind rely upon. thought negotiating judgment. appeal speed. having right overlooked it representation it and representations, from the far as it he waived it. of sale warranted reliance appellant tendered it to than it was August based was entered appellee appellant “again payment mortgage given finding being what 88 N. testimony It insisted reliance insisted rights fraudulently contract showed and Trans. Line was not en- 15 miles an appellee turned out not, may testimony was; —, appellant embodied properly appellee was either a entitled purpose “turned sale of placed of his grant- deter- upon must upon into, case ‘ was pos- Car did ap- we re- in- in-