
    J. M’Laughlin v. Sterling Horton.
    a special wai-ftiicustofhis dudes the gene-i-añ™ o’fsound-
    
      Tried before Mr. Justice Evans, at Lancaster— Term, 1833. Fall
    
    This action was brought on a note given for the price of a negro; the defence was a failure of eration; that the negro was unsound and of no value. The bill of sale contained a warranty of title, ami also that the negro was sound and healthy, “to the best of Ms (plantiff’s) knowledge.” Evidence was given by both parties as to the condition of the both before and after the sale, : which, according to the view taken by this court, it is unnecessary to state. The presiding Judge charged thé jury, that this was a special warranty; that the defence to succeed, must establish two propositions. 1st, That the negro was unsound; and 2nd, that the defendant knew it: which questions were submitted for their 'determination. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the defendant now moves for a new trial, on the grounds of error in the charge of the presiding Judge, and because the verdict was contrary to the evidence.
   Johnson, J.

The only question of law involved in the grounds of this motion, is, whether the special warranty of the plaintiff that the negro was sound and healthy to the best of his knowledge, excludes the general implied warranty of soundness, arising from the price paid. The general rule very clearly is, that when a contract is, reduced to writing, parol is inadmissible to shew that any thing else was intended than what is expressed; yet in the case of Wells v. Spears (1 M’Cord, 421) it was held that a bill of sale warranting the property in a negro, did not exclude, the implied warranty of soundness. This case is however distinguishable from that. There, the soundness of the negro did not enter into the written contract at all, and there was at least some plausibility in the argument, that the written contract was not intended to apply to it. But here the soundness of the negro is the subject of express warranty; it shews that that was -the subject of the contract, and the plaintiff's liability cannot be extended beyond it, ei~ ther by parol or iegal implication.

Williams, for the motion.

The other questions relate to matters of fact, and however doubtful we may be as to the correctnes of the conclusions drawn by the jury, we must regard them as conclusive.

Motion dismissed.

O’Neall & Harper, Js. concurred.  