Bulkley v. Honold
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Louisiana.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Taylor for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Benjamin for the defendant.
Mr. Taylor contended that, if the law of Louisiana governed, there was error, because—
1. The defect in the ship was an apparent defect, in the legal sense of the term, the existence of which imposed no responsibility on the vendor.
2. Because the obligation of warranty, implied in sales of ships, does not extend to cases of decay, to which they are, from their nature, liable.
3. The defendant in error, by failing to offer to place the defendant in the court below in the position he was in before the sale, by tendering back the ship, &c., lost all right to maintain his action in redhibition or in diminution of the price.
He contended, also, that the case was not governed by the law of Louisiana, but by the law of New York, where the vendor had his domicil, or by the commercial law of the United States.
Mr. Justice CURTIS delivered the opinion of the court.