Smith v. Foster
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trover for a horse. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, Royce, J., presiding. The defendant had attached the horse in question, in due course of law, as the property of one Daniel Blackstone.
Read the full summary
Trover for a horse. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, Royce, J., presiding. The defendant had attached the horse in question, in due course of law, as the property of one Daniel Blackstone. On trial it appeared, that on the eighth day of May, 1843, Asa Aldis, who was then the owner of the horse in question, contracted to sell the horse to Blackstone for forty dollars, and Blackstone paid eighteen dollars towards the price, and an agreement in writing was entered into between them, by the terms of which the horse was to be kept and used prudently by Blackstone and returned to Aldis…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
It is quite clear, that Blackstone never had such an interest in the horse, as could be attached. Asa Aldis, who was the owner of the horse in May, 1843, then delivered him to Blackstone, who was to keep and use him until May 1, 1844, when he was to return him to Aldis. The contract between them, however, provided, that if Blackstone paid Aldis twenty two dollars on or *185before the first day of May, 1844, the latter would sell and transfer the horse to the former. It appears that the sum to be paid for the horse was forty dollars, and that…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Buckmaster v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Armington v. HoustonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
- Duncan v. StoneSupreme Court of Vermont · 1872
- Aultman, Miller & Co. v. MalloryNebraska Supreme Court · 1876
- Brown v. HaynesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1864
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.