Childs v. Emerson
Decision Date | 27 March 1906 |
Citation | 93 S.W. 286,117 Mo. App. 671 |
Parties | CHILDS v. EMERSON. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; David H. Eby, Judge.
Action by W. O. Childs against Luke M. Emerson. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The suit is on an alleged breach of warranty in the sale of a jack. Plaintiff, a resident of the state of Washington, being desirous of purchasing a fine jack for breeding purposes, and having the name and address of the defendant as an importer and breeder of such animals, wrote to him about December 1, 1901, a letter of inquiry relative to his prospective purchase, and in reply to this letter the defendant wrote plaintiff December 8th as follows:
After the receipt of this letter, about December 25th of the same year, the plaintiff answered, saying to defendant that he wanted "the best jack according to [his] letter, the imported mammoth jack, 5 years old, 15½ hands high, weighing 1,000 pounds, with large smooth flat bones with white points, standing up like a fine coach horse, with long tapering ears, at the price of $800.00 mentioned," and that he was holding his wheat crop and could not pay it all cash down, but would pay $400 cash and give defendant his note for $400, due one year after date, with interest. In response to this letter defendant wrote plaintiff as follows: Plaintiff forwarded the $400 and the note, which was approved, and defendant shipped to him by express a jack which upon arrival at its destination, instead of weighing 1,000 pounds, weighed only 665 pounds; instead of being 15½ hands high, was only 13 hands and 1 inch in height; instead of having large smooth flat bones, it had only medium bones. It was injured in its rear legs, and did not "stand up like a fine coach horse." The jack is mentioned by plaintiff's witnesses as resembling a "jack rabbit," and that "his ears were the biggest thing about him." He proved not to be a sure foal getter, and instead of getting 65 to 75 colts by 90 to 100 mares the result did not exceed 50 per cent. His value was shown to be from $300 to $400, instead of $1,200 to $1,500 as represented. The plaintiff declined to receive the animal upon his arrival and caused his attorneys to so notify defendant, but as defendant neither answered the letter nor made any move towards reclaiming the jack plaintiff finally, after several months waiting upon him, took the animal into his possession, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Turner v. Central Hardware Co.
... ... intent. Wertheimer-Swarts Shoe Co. v. McDonald, 138 ... Mo.App. 238, 122 S.W. 5; Childs v. Emerson, 117 ... Mo.App. 671, 93 S.W. 286; State Bank v. Cape Girardeau, ... etc., R. Co., 172 Mo.App. 662, 155 S.W. 1111; 55 C.J ... 673 ... ...
-
Spruce Co. v. Mays
... ... Latham v. Shipley, 86 Iowa 545; 35 Cyc. 373, 374; ... Carter v. Black, 46 Mo. 384; Childs v ... Emmerson, 117 Mo.App. 671; Wertheimer-Swartz Shoe ... Co. v. McDonald, 138 Mo.App. 328. (4) This court in this ... division has but ... ...
-
Spruce Co. v. Mays
...that the word warranty should be used. Latham v. Shipley, 86 Iowa, 545; 35 Cyc. 373, 374; Carter v. Black, 46 Mo. 384; Childs v. Emmerson, 117 Mo. App. 671; Wertheimer-Swartz Shoe Co. v. McDonald, 138 Mo. App. 328. (4) This court in this division has but recently held in Hunter v. Waterloo ......
- Lewis v. Paul Brown Realty & Inv. Co.