Merrifield v. McClay
Oregon Supreme Court
From Crook: William L. Bradshaw, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride. This is a suit by J. W. Merrifield and C. D. Hartman against Z. T. McClay and Mary McClay to foreclose a mortgage upon certain real estate in Crook County, Oregon. The defendants answered, setting up in substance: That the notes, to secure which the mortgage was executed, were given for the purchase price of a stallion sold by plaintiffs to defendant T. P. MeClay.
Read the full summary
From Crook: William L. Bradshaw, Judge. Department 1. Statement by Mr. Chief Justice McBride. This is a suit by J. W. Merrifield and C. D. Hartman against Z. T. McClay and Mary McClay to foreclose a mortgage upon certain real estate in Crook County, Oregon. The defendants answered, setting up in substance: That the notes, to secure which the mortgage was executed, were given for the purchase price of a stallion sold by plaintiffs to defendant T. P. MeClay. That, in order to induce defendant to purchase the horse, plaintiffs falsely represented that he was three fourths Coach and one fourth…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice McBride.
1. The evidence is conflicting, but we think a clear preponderance indicates that the plaintiffs represented that the horse sold was three fourths Coach and one fourth Morgan and entitled to registration as a grade stallion, and that their representations induced defendant McClay to purchase him. It also appears that *92the horse was sired by a pure bred Coach horse by a dam whose pedigree was unknown, which rendered him ineligible to registration and detracted greatly from his value as a service stallion. This being so, the defendant had a right to rescind.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hammond v. . PennockNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Brown v. NormanMississippi Supreme Court · 1888
- Sisson, Potter & Co. v. HillSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1891
- Jones v. McGinnOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Scott v. PerrinCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1816
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. GamerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1918
- Pepper v. VedovaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
- Larsen v. LootensOregon Supreme Court · 1921