Schuyler against Russ

Schuyler against Russ. On a written warranty that a negro is sound, parol proof is admissible to show tha:. at the time of sale, the vendor informed the vendee of a defect. A warranty does not extend to defects which are visible. Case on a written warranty, upon the sale of a negro, that he was in good health, and in all respects sound. At the trial, parol evidence was admitted to establish, that at the time of sale the plaintiff communicated to the defendant the defect in question, which was in the left arm, offering to show it, and that it was clearly visible, the arm being thin and crooked. It was without argument submitted to the court to determine whether this evidence was admissible or not ? [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The proof was admissible. A warranty •does not extend to things which, from the senses, may ba discerned tobe otherwise. Finch's Law, 189 ; 1 Salk. 211. ’Here the defect was not only visible, but the plaintiff told the defendant of it truly and explicitly, nay, even directed his attention particularly to it. The defect in question was not, therefore, within the purview of the contract, and the parol proof being admitted, the verdict was agreeble to-the weight of evidence and the justice of the case. See Jackson v. Putnam, 1 Caines’ Rep. 358, and note here.