A sale and delivery of a pair of horses represented to be all right and fit for work, the purchaser relying upon the representations of the vendor without examination, when in fact the horses were known to the vendor to be lame and unfit for work, is rescinded by a notice from the purchaser the next day, after an examination, that he should not accept the property delivered, and a request to take it away.
CLARK, J.
The only question is, whether the notice to the defendant by the plaintiff, the next day after the delivery of the property, that one of the horses was lame, that they were not fit and that he should not accept the property delivered, requesting him to take it away, was a sufficient revocation of the contract. The fact is found that the defendant knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the horses, and knew that he had not delivered all the property which he agreed to deliver. The fraud of the defendant vitiated the sale, and it was not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff, not having an opportunity to examine for himself, relied upon the statements of the defendant, which were false. Upon ascertaining the facts, all that was necessary to revoke the contract was to notify the defendant that he should not accept the property. Such notice was given seasonably, and the contract was avoided.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
BLODGETT, J., did not sit: the others concurred.