Gunderson v. Richardson

• Decision Date: 22 April 1881
• Citation: 8 N.W. 683,56 Iowa 56
• Parties: GUNDERSON v. RICHARDSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

56 Iowa 56

8 N.W. 683

GUNDERSON

v.RICHARDSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 22, 1881.

Appeal from Kossuth district court.

The following is a copy of the petition in this case: “For cause of action herein plaintiff says: That on or about the first day of June, 1878, the plaintiff traded a pair of large work horses to the defendant for a pair of smaller horses and $90 cash; that at and before said trade, as an inducement to plaintiff to make said trade with defendant, the said defendant, with the intent and purpose to cheat and defraud plaintiff, did wilfully, falsely, and fraudulently state and represent that one of his said horses, to-wit, the dark bay, mediumsized horse, was sound, and all right in every way, except he had the horse distemper, but did not have the glanders,--was getting over it, and would be all right in a short time; that plaintiff, believing and relying upon the statements and representations so made by defendant, was thereby induced to trade for and take said horse as aforesaid; that in truth and in fact said horse did not have the disease commonly known as the horse distemper, but did have the disease known as the glanders, nasal gleet, or farcy, which disease said horse had had for a long time, and was of no value whatever, all of which facts were well known to defendant; that if the said horse had in fact been as defendant represented he would have been worth $100; that plaintiff took said horse to his home in Winnebago county, where he kept him with his other horse; that said diseased horse communicated said disease to plaintiff's other one, a black mare, that died with said disease about the first of September, 1878; that said last-named mare was of the actual value of $50; that plaintiff, after he discovered that said horse so obtained from defendant had the glanders, returned said horse to defendant about the first of October, 1878, and tendered said animal to said defendant; that plaintiff spent a large amount of time in nursing and doctoring said horse, and that plaintiff's time so spent was about 20 days, which time was reasonably worth one dollar per day; that plaintiff expended two dollars for medicine for said last-mentioned horse; that the reasonable expense for keeping said horse from the time he got the same from defendant up to the time plaintiff ascertained that said horse had the glanders, which was 90 days, was $22; that plaintiff has sustained damage by the acts of defendant as aforesaid in the full sum of $194.50. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for $194.50 real damages, and $305.50 exemplary damages, and costs of this action.”

One count of the answer was as follows: “Defendant, further answering the plaintiff's petition, says that said horse trade was entered into and consummated on the second day of June, 1878, which was the first day of the week, commonly called ‘Sabbath.’ ” There was a demurrer to said count upon the following grounds: “(1) The facts set forth in said count do not constitute a defence...