Earle v. Coburn
| Decision Date | 09 April 1881 |
| Citation | 130 Mass. 596 |
| Parties | Amos R. Earle v. Jesse J. Coburn |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued October 5, 1880
Worcester. Contract upon an account annexed for the board and stabling of the defendant's horse, from April 14, 1877 to January 17, 1878. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court, in substance as follows:
It was in evidence that, prior to April 14, 1877, the plaintiff had exchanged the horse in question with the defendant for a wagon; that a controversy arose between them as to the character of the transaction, and its effect upon the title of each in the property exchanged; that the defendant returned the horse to the stable of the plaintiff, and demanded of him the wagon; that the plaintiff refused to deliver the wagon, and the defendant thereupon left the horse on the plaintiff's premises and brought an action against the plaintiff for a conversion of the wagon; that at the trial of that action the then plaintiff introduced evidence to show that the transaction was of such a character that the then defendant acquired no title in the wagon, and that he acquired no title in the horse; and evidence was introduced by the then defendant to show that the exchange was complete and that he acquired title to the wagon and parted with his title to the horse; and that in that action the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, upon which judgment was duly entered by the court.
It was also in evidence at the trial of the present action that, at the time the defendant left the horse at the plaintiff's stable, both parties disclaimed ownership; that the plaintiff told the defendant that if he left it on his premises he must do so on his own responsibility and expense; that the defendant told the plaintiff he would have nothing more to do with the horse, and would not be responsible for it; that, on August 1, 1877, the plaintiff told the defendant that he had got a horse of his at his stable and should charge him for its board and keeping, and that the defendant replied that he had no horse at the plaintiff's stable.
The horse was fed and stabled by the plaintiff during the whole time embraced in the declaration, and the defendant made no other provision for his care and keeping, and did not demand him of the plaintiff, and gave him no orders respecting the same; and the plaintiff testified that he never sent the defendant any bill for board and stabling of the horse, and never made any demand except as stated in the interview of August 1, 1877.
Upon this evidence, the judge ruled that the action could not be maintained, directed a verdict for the defendant, and reserved the question of the correctness of the ruling for the determination of this court.
Judgment on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brunner v. Stix, Baer & Fuller Co.
...from plaintiff's plan. Reifschneider v. Beck, 129 S.W. 232, 148 Mo.App. 725; Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 70 F.2d 345; Earle v. Coburn, 130 Mass. 596; Lamson Store Service Co. v. Weil, 8 N.Y.S. 336; Municipal Water Works Co. v. City of Fort Smith, 216 F. 431; Haskins v. Ryan, 64 A. 436......
-
Consolidated Products Co. v. Blue Valley Creamery Co.
...cannot be implied in fact against the denial of one of the parties. Citing Miller v. Schloss, 218 N.Y. 400, 113 N.E. 337; Earle v. Coburn, 130 Mass. 596. See, also, Johnson v. American Paper Products Co., Mo.App., 201 S.W. 651. It is well settled that a contract cannot be implied in fact ag......
-
Walter Boss, Inc. v. Roncalli Freight Co.
...( Morse v. Kenney , 87 Vt. 445, 89 Atl. 865 ; Mathie v. Hancock , 78 Vt. 414, 63 Atl. 143 ; Hertzog v. Hertzog , 29 Pa. 465 ; Earle v. Coburn , 130 Mass. 596 ; Central Bridge Corporation v. Abbott , 4 Cush. (Mass.) 473."Defense Counsel also cites to the holding in Sarbro IX v. State Office ......
-
Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Bros., Inc.
...submission. See, e.g., N.Y. Central R. Co. v. Sturtevant & Haley Beef & Supply Co., 236 Mass. 16, 127 N.E. 509 (1920); Earle v. Coburn, 130 Mass. 596 (1881). This position is unexceptionable insofar as the operative events are considered to be the defendant's assent following plaintiff's su......