Ketchum v. Watson
Illinois Supreme Court
The facts of this case are the same as those of the preceding case; except the instructions which are stated in the opinion, and the evidence of Michael Watson, called by plaintiff, who said, that he is son of plaintiff; knew the horse in question; plaintiff had owned the horse for four or five years ; he sold the horse to George Outlaw on the eleventh day of August, 1859, conditionally; that Outlaw was to take the horse and take good care of him, and if he paid for it by…
Read the full summary
The facts of this case are the same as those of the preceding case; except the instructions which are stated in the opinion, and the evidence of Michael Watson, called by plaintiff, who said, that he is son of plaintiff; knew the horse in question; plaintiff had owned the horse for four or five years ; he sold the horse to George Outlaw on the eleventh day of August, 1859, conditionally; that Outlaw was to take the horse and take good care of him, and if he paid for it by the twenty-fifth of December, 1859, the horse was to be Outlaw’s, but if he failed to pay for the same, the horse was to…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
This case, in its principal features, does not differ from the case of Ketchum v. M. Watson, ante, 591, and must be decided in the same way. There are, however, some instructions necessary to be noticed.
The plaintiff asked this instruction, which the court gave : “ If the plaintiff sold Outlaw a horse, conditioned that it should not be his property until paid for, and that Ketchum was cognizant of such contract, they will find for the plaintiff, unless the property was in the possession of Outlaw, and the indebtedness accrued to Ketchum before such notice, and while Outlaw had said horse in…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gerow v. CastelloSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888