
    Beecker & Beecker against Vrooman.
    in an for the price a chattel, the prove ™ deceit in the sale, and njatthe^chattei and thus defeat ■the plaintiff’s wn=ouMnessitiie }y°aUpar«Sedn va?uT0he0míy ln°iñitigatioSaof damagos.,
    IN ERROR, tp the court of common pleas of the county .©£ Mamso.n*-s-
    
    This Was‘ an actionof assumpsit brought by .F^rboman,, in the - . . , . , r ' V . . court below, agamst the plain tins in error, to recover the price pf a'horsé and a mare sold by Vrooman to the plaintiffs . ' ■ ■■ J ■ F - ' lQ. who; pleaded the general issue, with notice of special maiter to b'e given in evidence. The plaintiff below having Proved the sale of the .mare to the defendants below, for the priceoff Strdollars, the cpunsel for, thé defeudaiits offered tp prove,. that.-at; the time, of; the sale the mare.was sick and diseased^ and the plaintiff,, well knowing this.fact, represented ■her to be sound,and ■healthy. This.testimony was objected to by. the plaintiff’s counselj and the defendants* counsel admittihg,. on being interrogated by the court,-that he was ribt prepared.to. prove that .the, defendants had entirely lost, the mare* but offered to prove that tiie mare was, of vgry .trifling value, and was'siek and diseased,, and that the -plaintiff''had defrauded the de?, fendants in the bargain.; the court rejected the evidence, and ruled, that evidence of- fraud was only admissible where it went to the entire .cause of action, and-could not be received in mitigation of damages, by showing; a partial loss. The jury, under the. direction of the Court,, found, a verdict for the .plaintiff; below-for-39 dollars and 27 cents,;.; and -a bill of exceptions ' having beep tendered bytlie defendants!,.it was removedinip. this court by Writ of error. .... ,
    The case was submitted to the; court without argument.
   Yak Ness, J.,

delivered the opinión' of the court. The defence, offered in th.e court below Wgs improperly excluded.. The defendant below apprised the plaintiff of-his intention to rely for his. defence,, at the trial,'upon, the ffaudy and the es— tablished rulé now appears to be,, that, in cases-like the present, fraud may be givep in evidencé as. a defence, and will be an answer to the whole demand, or in abatement of the damagés, ac- . cording to the circumstances of the case./ This is the true) aw well as a salutary rule, and well calculated to do final and compíete justice between the parties, most expeditiously and least expensively. (Basten v. Butten, 7 East, 480. n. Lewis v. Casgrave, 2 Taunt. 2. Fisher v. Samuda and another, 1 Camp. N. P. 190. Runyan v. Nichols, 11 Johns. Rep. 548.) The judgment, must, therefore, be reversed, and a venire de novo issued in the court below. ' ' ' <

Judgment below reversed.,  