Williamson v. Brandenberg

• Decision Date: 16 December 1892
• Docket Number: 15,721
• Parties: Williamson et al. v. Brandenberg
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

32 N.E. 834

133 Ind. 594

Williamson et al. v. Brandenberg

No. 15,721

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 16, 1892

From the Delaware Circuit Court.

D. T Taylor, R. H. Hartford, R. S. Gregory and A. C. Silverburg for appellants.

F. P Foster, J. F. Duckwall and J. N. Templer, for appellee.

OPINION

Olds, J.

The appellant and the appellee traded horses, the appellant receiving from the appellee a stallion valued at $ 310, in exchange for which he gave appellee another horse, valued at $ 125, $ 35 cash and his note for $ 150. The appellee brought this suit on the note, and there being some question as to whether or not the note was valid by reason of having been, or claimed to have been, delivered on Sunday, a second count was added to the complaint, on account, for the $ 150 difference agreed to be paid between the value of the horses.

The appellant filed an answer and cross-complaint. The cross-complaint alleges the exchange of horses, the taking of the stallion at an agreed price of $ 310, the payment in trade and cash of $ 160, and the giving of a note for $ 150. It then alleges fraud in the transaction, on the part of the appellee. The averments were held by the Circuit Court to be sufficient and as stating a good cause of action entitling the appellant to some damages, and numerous items of damages are alleged in the cross-complaint, and there is a final prayer for judgment against the appellee for $ 1,200.

Among the items for damages alleged are $ 100 for money paid out for doctoring, treating, and caring for the horse; for services in caring for the horse fifty days, $ 100; for services of a person to take charge of and manage the horse during the breeding seasons of 1888 and 1889, $ 100; and alleges that if he had been sound and a sure foal-getter he would have served 100 mares at $ 10 each, and gotten them with foal, and earned $ 1,000. It is finally alleged in conclusion that if said stallion had been sound, free from disease, a sure foal-getter, five years old, and could have trotted a mile in two minutes and forty seconds, as the appellee represented him, he would then and there have been worth $ 310, but in the condition he was in he was worth nothing.

Various motions were made, and the case was finally put at issue by a reply, and a trial had, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $ 169.22.

The measure of damages properly averred in the cross-complaint and for which appellant may have been entitled to recover on proper proof, do not amount to $ 1,000, nor do they, together with the amount appellee was entitled to recover, reach that amount. It is not necessary for us to determine with certainty the measure of appellant's damages in case he was entitled to recover, but it is certain that the principal item of damages would be the difference in the value of the horse as he was in fact and as he was represented by the appellee. The appellant would have the benefit of his contract, and be entitled to recover the difference in the value of the horse as he was represented and as he was in fact. That difference, as alleged in this cross-complaint, is $ 310. The fact as to whether or not he was a good foal-getter, if he was represented to be, or whether he could trot as fast as represented, may be proper to be proven and to enter into the question of the value of the horse, but what might have been made if a sure foal-getter, or from contests in speed, if he could have trotted as represented, are too speculative and uncertain...