Lyon v. Bertram

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of California.

The facts are particularly stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Brent and Mr. Poe for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Fessenden for the defendants.

The counsel for the plaintiff in error, after stating their objections to the pleadings in the case, and also those which were founded on the statute of limitations in California, contended that this was not an entire contract for the purchase of the whole cargo, but only for so much of it as was branded Haxall; that the description of the quality was material; that Lyon, if had chosen, could have declined to receive any part of the cargo; that the acceptance of a part, under the circumstances, did not affect his right to repudiate the residue.

Mr. Fessenden contended that the contract was entire; that it was an executed contract; that the term Haxall was descriptive merely, and not material; that if it was material, then it was an express warranty upon which the purchaser must rely, without rescinding the contract; and that the acceptance of a part was an acceptance of the whole.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.