Case Digest (G.R. No. 18999)
Facts:
Albert Bryan, Plaintiff and Appellant, vs. Thomas Hankins and J. Bialoglowski, Defendants and Appellants, G.R. No. 18999. November 24, 1922, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johns, J., writing for the Court.On October 20, 1920, in Manila the defendants sold to Albert Bryan the motor schooner Sultan for P55,000; Bryan paid P20,000 and executed two promissory notes (P18,000 due April 26, 1921 and P17,000 due July 26, 1921), and possession of the schooner was delivered to him. The vessel was immediately taken to Iloilo, where the hull-and-boiler inspector first examined it on March 11, 1921; the inspection found the schooner unseaworthy and ordered immediate repairs.
On March 16, 1921, Bryan sued, alleging the sale, the notes, and that hidden defects existed at delivery, rendering the vessel unfit and that defendants warranted seaworthiness; he tendered the schooner into court and asked for rescission, cancellation of the promissory notes, a refund of P20,000 (with interest), and damages and costs. The defendants answered with a general denial and counterclaimed on the promissory notes for P35,000, alleging plaintiff had repudiated them.
The trial court found latent defects rendering the vessel unseaworthy and awarded Bryan P10,000 (the court treated the P20,000 paid less a P10,000 allowance for the value of the use of the vessel while in Bryan’s possession) without costs. Both parties appealed: Bryan sought the full P20,000 refund, while the defendants argued (1) the claim was barred by the thirty‑day limitation of Article 342, Code of Commerce, (2) the schooner was not unseaworthy at sale, (3) Bryan waived any im...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the thirty‑day limitation in Article 342 of the Code of Commerce bar Bryan’s action for hidden defects?
- Were the defects in the motor schooner latent and sufficient to render it unfit so as to justify rescission under Articles 1484 and 1485 of the Civil Code?
- Did Bryan, by his conduct at the time of sale, waive any implied warranty against hidden defects?
- Should the defendants succeed on their counterclaim for the promissory notes, or must the value of the use of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)