Lufkins v. Collins

• Decision Date: 08 March 1886
• Citation: 10 P. 300,2 Idaho 256
• Parties: LUFKINS v. COLLINS ET AL
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

10 P. 300

2 Idaho 256

LUFKINS v. COLLINS ET AL

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 8, 1886

VERDICT-EVIDENCE.-The verdict of a jury against defendants in an action for the recovery of personal property is conclusive on appeal to the supreme court of the question of ownership, and also upon all the allegations in the complaint material to recovery in the action, if there is any evidence to sustain the verdict.

SPECIAL VERDICT OF A JURY.-It is the province of the court to determine as to what particular facts the jury shall find specially, and neither party has the right to dictate the terms of any particular question which the court may deem proper to submit to the jury.

INSTRUCTIONS-VERDICT.-When the instructions, taken as a whole, fairly submit the case to the jury, the verdict will not be disturbed on account of mere inaccuracies in some of the instructions given.

APPEAL from District Court, Alturas County.

Affirmed.

Kimball & Heywood, for Appellants.

No brief on file.

G. L Waters, L. Vineyard, J. B. Rosborough, and Brumback & Lamb for Respondent.

A party who negligently or culpably stands by and allows another to contract on the faith and understanding of a fact, which he can contradict, cannot afterward dispute that fact in an action against the person who has himself assisted in deceiving. (See the case of Pickard v. Sears, cited in Bigelow on Estoppel, 3d ed., p. 479, and note by Lord Denman p. 479; 69 Ill. 452; 91 Ill. 58; 88 Ill. 452; 89 Ill. 491; 79 Ill. 187; 85 Ill. 96; 33 Mich. 92; 46 N.Y. 325, 7 Am. Rep. 341; 55 N.Y. 41, 14 Am. Rep. 173; 4 Met. 381, 38 Am. Dec. 376, and note.)

BRODERICK J. Hays, C. J., and Buck, J., concurring.

OPINION

BRODERICK, J.

This case was here on appeal at the instance of defendants, and was decided at the January term, 1885 (ante, p. 150, 7 P. 95). The former judgment was there reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below for a new trial. The plaintiff again obtained a verdict and judgment, and from this judgment the defendants appeal.

The facts, as disclosed by the record, are substantially as follows: On and prior to the twenty-first day of November 1882, the firm of Adams & Cunningham were the owners of seventy-one head of mules and horses used in teaming, and at that time the firm was engaged in teaming for Collins & Co., the defendants herein, with this plaintiff as boss or train-master, in the employ of said Adams & Cunningham, on the Oregon Short Line Railroad. On November 21, 1882, at Pocatello station, on the line of said road, Adams & Cunningham, being threatened with attachment suits, sold their stock and forwarding outfit to Collins & Co., defendants, and delivered to them a bill of sale, but the property was not there, and no part of it was delivered until the next day thereafter. The defendants and Adams then proceeded to the sixteen-mile station on the road, where they met the plaintiff with some of the property, and informed him of the transaction. On the twenty-second day of November, 1882, at the forty-three mile station on the road, the firm of Adams & Cunningham, by bill of sale and by actual delivery, sold to the plaintiff the five mules described in the complaint. While the negotiation was going on between plaintiff and Adams for the five mules, the defendant Stevens said to plaintiff that the sale of the property to defendants did not amount to much; that it was done to keep the work going on, and that he (plaintiff) could go ahead and purchase the mules, and thereby make himself secure. Immediately thereafter, and in presence of Stevens, the plaintiff selected the five head of mules, and he and Adams agreed upon the purchase price, and they were then and there delivered by Adams to the plaintiff. The delivery of the property was accomplished by a bill of sale executed by Adams & Cunningham. This occurred before the property had been delivered to the defendants. Adams then delivered to Stevens, for defendants, the other property, consisting of sixty-six head of stock and the forwarding outfit, and by agreement there made the plaintiff retained the control of the same for defendants, and continued in their employ as train-master. The plaintiff retained possession of the mules so purchased by him, and claimed and used them without objection from defendants until some time in January, 1883. On the nineteenth day of January, 1883, the defendants, while the plaintiff was absent, and without his consent, and by "force and arms," took and drove away the mules, claiming them under the...