Roberts against Morgan

Roberts against Morgan. n an action upon a warranty of a chattel, it is not necessary to prove that the word warrant was used. Any affirmation amounting to a warranty is sufficient. On certiorari to a Justice’s Court. Assumpsit by Morgan against Roberts, in the Court below, on a warranty of a horse upon an exchange of horses; and one question was, whether a warranty was proved. The plaintiff told the defendant that he would not exchange, unless the defendant would warrant the horse to be sound, to which the defendant answered, “ he is a sound horse except the bunch on his leg.” The plaintiff gave proof tending to show that the horse had the glanders. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. W. Crafts for the plaintiff in error. J. Ruger, contra. [MAJORITY — Savage, Ch. J.] Savage, Ch. J. in delivering the opinion of the Court, said there was no necessity to show- that the word warrant was made use of. Any affirmation amounting to it is sufficient. Judgment affirmed.