Quinn v. Stout

• Decision Date: 31 October 1860
• Citation: 31 Mo. 160
• Parties: QUINN, Respondent, v. STOUT, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

31 Mo. 160

QUINN, Respondent,

v.STOUT, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1860.

1. A compliance with technical rules of pleading is not required in actions before justices of the peace.

2. A statement filed with a justice of the peace in the following form: “A. B. to C. D., Dr. To one horse sold him on the 2d day of November last--$90. St. Louis, February 1, 1858,” is sufficient.

3. Where a horse is sold conditionally, to be returned in the event the vendee should be dissatisfied with him on trial, the sale will become absolute by the vendee's keeping the horse beyond a reasonable time.

Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.

This was an action commenced before a justice of the peace to recover the price of a horse. The statement filed with the justice was as follows: “B. F. Stout to Patrick Quinn, Dr. To one horse sold him on the 2d day of November last--$90. St. Louis, February 1, 1858.” The justice rendered judgment for plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the law commissioner's court. The defendant's objection to the sufficiency of the statement was overruled. It appeared in evidence that defendant Stout was engaged in selling oysters, butter, fish, &c. that plaintiff brought the horse to defendant's place of business; that defendant asked plaintiff if that was the horse; that plaintiff said it was; that defendant asked the price, and plaintiff said ninety dollars; that defendant said if any thing happened to the horse he would pay for him; that defendant had him in possession from November 2d, 1857, to February following. There was evidence introduced with a view to show that the defendant in selling oysters was acting as the agent of Platte & Co.; that a few days before this suit was brought plaintiff inquired of a person in the employ of defendant whether defendant was talking about keeping or buying the horse. The defendant, after the commencement of the suit, offered to deliver the horse to plaintiff. The plaintiff refused to receive him.

Shreve, for appellant.

I. No statement of an account was filed, and no statement of a cause of action. The testimony will not warrant the conclusion that defendant was to try the horse and if he suited defendant was to pay for him. He agreed if any accident happened to the horse, he would pay for him ninety dollars. Nothing was said about how long defendant should keep the horse to try him. The horse did not suit him. He offered to return the horse. Plaintiff refused to accept. The evidence shows that the horse was bought for Platte & Co. The court erred in refusing the instructions asked.

Crane, for respondent.

I. The statement was sufficient. The transaction was a contract of sale or return. The purchaser in such case must make his election in a reasonable time. If the property is retained an unreasonable time the vendor is at liberty to treat the sale as absolute. (Hilliard on Sales, ch. 5, § 4; Long on Sales, ch. 3, § 17.) The defendant kept the horse three months, using him constantly in his business. This time was unreasonable. (Neato v. Ball, 2 East, 112.) There is no proof that defendant bought or took the horse for Platte & Co.

...