Crouch & Son v. Leake
| Decision Date | 19 May 1913 |
| Citation | 157 S.W. 390,108 Ark. 322 |
| Parties | CROUCH & SON v. LEAKE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union Circuit Court; George W. Hays, Judge; reversed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
This suit was brought by appellants against T. B. Leake and others to recover a balance of $ 614.95, claimed to be due on a note for $ 1,000, executed to them May 29, 1907. The note was signed by the defendants and credited with six different amounts paid thereon from May 29, 1907, to March 15, 1910 aggregating $ 534.93.
The defendants admitted the execution of the note and alleged that it and two others for like amount were given for the purchase of a stallion sold them by plaintiffs under a warranty, that he was an imported German coach horse and a satisfactory and sure breeder; alleged a breach of the warranty, that the horse was not a sure breeder, as warranted, and unfit for the purpose for which he was purchased.
He was delivered to the defendants on May 29, 1907, under the following contract of sale and warranty:
The testimony tends to show that the horse was not "a satisfactory sure breeder," as warranted, and that only about 10 per cent of the mares he served brought colts.
One of the defendants stated that he made an effort to return the stallion in 1908, but did not remember the date. They had a meeting at which he was appointed on a committee to see T. B Henderson, the bank cashier, and have him open correspondence with Crouch & Son to dispose of the horse in some way as soon as they found he was not a sure breeder. They wanted to satisfy the company and return the horse and offered to pay the first note, but this offer was not satisfactory. That in the following spring, they had Mr. Henderson write a letter taking the matter up.
Mr Henderson testified that he took up the matter of the settlement at the defendants' request and made an offer to return the horse and pay the first note in settlement, and could not remember the date the letter was written, but thought it was in the summer of 1908.
The following letter, which appellants stated was the only one they had ever received, relative to the matter, was introduced in evidence:
No offer to return the horse before that date, or at all, in accordance with the terms of the warranty, was shown. The court instructed the jury, refusing to direct a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
F. C. Austin Co., Inc. v. J. H. Tillman Co.
... ... warranty. Hause v. Surran, 168 Ky. 686, 182 S.W ... 927, L. R. A. 1916D, 997. See, also, note to Crouch v ... Leake, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 774 ... A ... contract of sale may fix conditions precedent to any rights ... ...
-
Monticello State Bank v. Killian
... ... and he must be governed by the stipulations contained in his ... contract. Harrison v. Walker, 124 Ark. 555, ... 188 S.W. 17; Crouch v. Leake, 108 Ark. 322, ... 157 S.W. 390; Holland Banking Co. v ... Haynes, 125 Ark. 10, 187 S.W. 632 ... ...
-
Bolt v. State Savings Bank
...1179; Holbert v. Sanzenbacher, 159 S. W. 1054; Haynes v. Plano Mfg. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 567, 82 S. W. 532; Crouch v. Leake, 108 Ark. 322, 157 S. W. 390, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 774. But the writer thinks that we are prevented from now so declaring the law, for the reason that defendants alle......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Fuller
...(Ky.) 101 S. W. 1179, and the following Arkansas cases; Highsmith v. Hammonds, 99 Ark. 400, 138 S. W. 635; Crouch v. Leaks, 108 Ark. 322, 157 S. W. 390, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 774; Holland Bank Co. v. Haynes (Ark.) 187 S. W. 632; Harrison v. Walker (Ark.) 188 S. W. But it is contended by appel......