Metz v. Jones

• Decision Date: 01 July 1924
• Citation: 39 Idaho 330,227 P. 591
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: S. METZ, H. E. METZ, J. L. METZ and M. C. METZ, Copartners Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of S. METZ & SONS, Appellants, v. S. H. JONES and E. C. JONES, Respondents

227 P. 591

39 Idaho 330

S. METZ, H. E. METZ, J. L. METZ and M. C. METZ, Copartners Doing Business Under the Firm Name and Style of S. METZ & SONS, Appellants, v. S. H. JONES and E. C. JONES, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

July 1, 1924

CONTRACT IN VIOLATION OF STATUTES-VALIDITY-PROMISSORY NOTE.

A contract for the sale of a jack made before the issuance of the required license by the department of agriculture is void, and a note given for the purchase price thereof prior to the issuance of the license is unenforceable.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, for Gooding County. Hon. Henry F. Ensign, Judge.

Action on a promissory note. Judgment for defendants. Affirmed.

Judgment of the lower court affirmed. Costs to respondents.

W. T Stafford, for Appellants, files no brief.

James &amp Ryan, for Respondents.

A note executed by the purchaser of a stallion or jack prior to the issuance of the license required by C. S., sec. 1887, in payment of said animal is invalid and unenforceable. (Zimmerman v. Brown, 30 Idaho 640, 166 P. 924.)

The fact that the owner of the jack had prior to his sale had the jack examined by the proper officials and paid the fee for the certificate does not authorize or validate a sale of the jack to a third party. (Wood v. Armstrong, 54 Ala 150, 25 Am. Rep. 671.)

A license takes effect as of the date of its delivery. (25 Cyc. 623; State v. Pate, 67 Mo. 488; Elsberry v. State, 52 Ala. 8.)

WM. E. LEE, J. McCarthy, C. J., and Budge and William A. Lee, JJ., concur.

OPINION

WM. E. LEE, J.

--This action was instituted to obtain a judgment upon a promissory note. At the conclusion of the evidence the court took the case from the jury and made and entered judgment dismissing the action and directing that defendants recover their costs. It is from this judgment that this appeal was taken. On April 12, 1920, appellants were owners of a certain jack which they had examined by a deputy director of animal industry. Thereafter, on April 15, 1920, appellants sold and delivered the jack to respondents, and on the same day, in payment of the purchase price of the jack, respondents made, executed and delivered to appellants their promissory note upon which this action was based. As soon as the sale had been effected appellants telephoned to the deputy director of the bureau of animal industry of the department of agriculture, who examined the jack, and requested him to have issued the license required by the statute in the name of respondents. It is admitted that the license was not issued until the 20th day of April, 1920, which was five days after the sale. C. S., sec. 1887, provides that:

"Every person owning or bringing...