Clark v. Gates
| Decision Date | 15 November 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,853 - (67) |
| Citation | 87 N.W. 941,84 Minn. 381 |
| Parties | C. E. CLARK v. EVA GATES and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Olmsted county against defendants Eva L. Gates and another, the heirs of Erford A. Gates deceased, to recover $500 for breach of warranty on the sale of a stallion by decedent. The case was tried before Snow J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of defendants. From an order denying a motion for a new trial plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Breach of Warranty -- Claim against Estate of Decedent.
A claim for damages for a breach of warranty in the sale of personal property against the deceased vendor must be presented to the probate court within the time fixed by such court, under G.S. 1894, § 4511, for allowance, or it will be barred.
Breach of Warranty -- Fraud.
Held, upon an examination of the facts in this case, that there was no evidence to establish fraud in the sale of personal property in question; that the claim was for a breach of warranty, resting solely upon contract, and, not having been presented for allowance within the time fixed by the court after the death of the vendor, could not be maintained.
Thomas Fraser, for appellant.
Brown, Abbott & Somsen, for respondents.
Plaintiff purchased a stallion for breeding purposes of defendants' testator. Subsequent to such sale the vendor died testate. His will was duly admitted to probate in Winona county. A time was fixed by the court for the presentation of claims against the estate, under the provisions of G.S. 1894, § 4511. After the time so fixed had expired, this action was commenced against the beneficiaries in testator's will, to whom the property of the deceased had been distributed, to recover damages for a breach of warranty of the qualities of the horse as a foal getter, accompanied with deceit in the sale of the property.
The allegations of the complaint are sufficient to show that the horse was warranted for certain purposes; that the representations of the qualities of the horse were untrue, -- in other words, a breach of warranty, with a proper allegation of injury, and damages. The only averment to support the claim of fraud and deceit in the complaint is as follows:
"That said statements and representations [of the represented qualities of the horse] made by said Erford A. Gates [the vendor] were in fact false and untrue, and plaintiff believes were known by him to be when made."
On the question litigated at the trial, -- whether the warranty was oral or written, -- considerable evidence was introduced to show that it was in writing, although it had been lost, and its contents were sought to be established by parol. The court excluded all evidence of an oral warranty, which ruling, for reasons stated hereafter, we do not consider. The court also instructed the jury that there was no evidence of fraud or deceit practiced by decedent upon the purchaser, and submitted the issue of the existence of the written warranty and its breach to the jury. The jury found, by special verdict, that the horse had not been warranted, and generally for the defendants. A motion for a new trial was made and denied, from which order plaintiff appeals to this court.
Defendants insist that whether the property sold to plaintiff was conveyed with a warranty, or whether there was a breach of such warranty, is immaterial on this appeal, since the evidence has no tendency to show that the vendor of the horse practiced any fraud or deceit upon the purchaser; that her damages, if any, were for a breach of...
To continue reading
Request your trial