Ross v. Clark
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Ralls Circuit Cowrt. The following is the instruction referred to in the opinion of the court: “ The court instructs the jury that if the jury believe from the evidence and circumstances proved in the cause that the defendant David Clark authorized his son James Clark to borrow plaintiff’s bull for him the said David, and that the said James as agent of the said David did borrow said bull from plaintiff for his father, the law implies a contract upon the part of the…
Read the full summary
Error to Ralls Circuit Cowrt. The following is the instruction referred to in the opinion of the court: “ The court instructs the jury that if the jury believe from the evidence and circumstances proved in the cause that the defendant David Clark authorized his son James Clark to borrow plaintiff’s bull for him the said David, and that the said James as agent of the said David did borrow said bull from plaintiff for his father, the law implies a contract upon the part of the said defendant David Clark to return said bull within a reasonable time, and the jury ought to find a verdict for…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, Judge
The plaintiff sued the defendant for the value of a bull alleged to have been loaned to the defendant and not returned. It may be inferred from the bill of exceptions that the defendant borrowed a bull belonging to the plaintiff, which has not been returned; but it does not appear when the bailment was made, nor that the time has expired for which it was made, nor whether a demand was ever made, nor whether the animal was dead or lost, or had ever been claimed or converted by the defendant.
In the case of a gratuitous loan, the borrower is bound to take proper care of the thing borrowed, and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Knipper v. BlumenthalSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Horine v. BoneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897