
    Samuel Crawford against Robert Wilson.
    peftyfJhlchpe™tends to defects g°™ and u“'
    This was an action to recover the value of negro, who wavS alleged to be unsound. The plaintiff proved, that before he purchased the A x A negro of the defendant’s agent, young Allen, that the agent warranted the girl to be sound, except as to a cast in her eye, and a split which appeared in her lip. It appeared, also, that the defendant returned shortly afterwards, and left a bill of sale for the plaintiff warranting.the soundness of the girl, except as to her eye and the lip, and the consequences thereof. The defendant was much displeased at this change in the terms of the warranty, and would have returned it immediately, if defendant had not gone away again: in the mean while, however, the girl had broke out all over in ulcers, and was in a short time declared to be incurable, when plaintiff returned the girl to the agent of the defendant. As soon as the defendant came back, the plaintiff demanded his money of him, which, however, he refused to pay. The Jury found for the plaintiff This motion is for a new trial, because the plaintiff having received the bill of sale, consented thereby to accept the warranty contained therein; and because the defendant, having warranted the girl, except against the lip and eye, as sound, whatever resulted from these defects must also be included in the exception.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered By

Mr. Justice Gkimke.

Í am of opinion, that in all contracts of this kind, every degree of candour and fairness should Be observed on the part of the seller; that a sound price would also imply a warranty of soundness; and that even such an implied warranty would extend to defects known, as well as those that were tinknown. But in this case there was a positive warranty at first; which it appeared, however, that the defendant chose to vary when he reduced it into writing; that the very alteration of the terms in the bill of sale from the parol one, showed that he himself had some suspicions, that the girl had a disorder which had not yet broke out, but which he was conscious, whenever it appeared, would injure her value; though not, perhaps, to the extent which it did. I do not think, therefore, that the defendant acted with that fairness and candour in this transaction with which he ought to have done; and that he ought not to have altered the conditions • of the sale from what his agent had agreed to: for if these terms had been offered to plaintiff at first, it would probably have put him upon his guard, and he would not have purchased upon the terms of the consequences resulting from the lip. I am, moreover, of opinion, that it did not appear in evidence that the disorder which broke out afterwards upon her was the consequence of the split lip; so admitting there was no variance between the oral and written warranty, if the lip was not a part of this disorder, still the warranty failed as to her general soundness, with the exception of the lip and eye. I am, therefore, of opinion, that as the question whether the disorder was incorporated into the girl’s constitution or not before the sale, was left to the Jury, and they found that it was; and that defendant had falsified his warranty. The verdict should not be disturbed.

Colcock, JVott, Cheves, and Johnson, J. concurred.  