Woody

Woody v. Bennett

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 677·88 Cal. 241·26 P. 117
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 6, 1891No. 14070California992 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hayne, J.

The defendants sold and delivered to the plaintiffs a stallion called “ Lord Roxbury,” for the sum of three thousand dollars, and gave to them the following contract:—•

The plaintiffs gave evidence tending to show that they used the applications recommended by the defendants, but that the bunches were hereditary and irremovable. On these points the evidence is conflicting. But there is no dispute about the fact that the bunches did not disappear. And after a time the plaintiffs requested that an exchange be made for another horse, as provided by the contract. The defendants at first expressed a willingness to make the exchange, and the plaintiffs thereupon selected a horse called “ Lord Roxbury, Second,” then in Kansas. But after some correspondence on the subject, the defendants annexed a condition to the right of exchange, which will be considered below. The plaintiffs thereupon brought the present action. The jury found a verdict in their favor for fifteen hundred dollars, and the defendants appealed.

1. There was evidence tending to show that the defendants told the plaintiffs “to use on these bunches *243 any ordinary simple remedies that is usually used for that purpose,”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.