DR. Valerius & Co. v. Hockspiere
| Decision Date | 27 January 1893 |
| Parties | DR. VALERIUS & COMPANY, Appellants, v. JACOB HOCKSPIERE et al., Appellees |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chickasaw District Court.--HON. L. O. HATCH, Judge.
ACTION on three notes, and to foreclose a mortgage securing the same. Judgment and decree for the plaintiffs, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
J. H Powers, for appellants.
Springer & Clary, for appellees.
This action is brought to recover judgment on three notes, and the foreclosure of a mortgage securing the same. The notes are signed by defendants, Jacob Hockspiere and Fred Hockspiere and the mortgage was executed by Jacob Hockspiere and his wife. The consideration of the notes and mortgage was an English shire stallion, which the plaintiffs aver was sold under a written warranty relating only to his qualities as a foal getter. The defendants file separate answers, in which they claim, in substance, that the defendant Fred Hockspiere alone purchased the horse, and the defendant Jacob signed the notes as surety only, and that the plaintiffs knew that fact when the notes were executed; that the consideration of said notes, and of fifty dollars which was paid plaintiffs, was the sale to them of an English shire stallion called "Triumph," for the total sum of one thousand, six hundred dollars; that at and prior to the sale of said horse to the defendant Fred Hockspiere, the plaintiff, by parol warranted him to be sound in body and limb, and that he was all right in every respect; that the defendant relied solely on the truth of the plaintiff's said statements, and believed them to be true, and so was induced to purchase the horse; that at the time and long before his purchase he was unsound, diseased, and had a spavin on one of his legs, and had other diseases, and he was at the time, and ever since has been, unfit for use as a stallion, and defendant has been damaged in the sum of two thousand dollars; that the defendant has been damaged five hundred dollars in care and feed for said horse, and in time expended in caring for him, and in paying for medicine and treatment for him; that there was no understanding or agreement between himself and the plaintiffs that there should be a written warranty of sale of the horse, nor did he know of the existence of the same until after this suit was commenced that he has never accepted the same, and now repudiates it. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial