Windle v. Jordan
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions and motion to set aside the verdict. Assumpsit to recover damages for an injury received from the kick of a horse which the plaintiff had hired from the defendant and was driving'. The writ was dated March 26, 1880, and contained the following declaration : [Declaration.] "In a plea of the case, for that the said defendant, at said Lisbon, on the second day of September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, in consideration that…
Read the full summary
On exceptions and motion to set aside the verdict. Assumpsit to recover damages for an injury received from the kick of a horse which the plaintiff had hired from the defendant and was driving'. The writ was dated March 26, 1880, and contained the following declaration : [Declaration.] "In a plea of the case, for that the said defendant, at said Lisbon, on the second day of September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, in consideration that the plaintiff at the special instance and request of the defendant, had hired of him one horse and wagon for the…
1Opinion of the CourtBarrows, J.
The fallacy upon which the defendant’s complaints of the instructions given to the jury are based, consists in the assumption that it was a special and express contract that the horse was kind and free from vice, that the plaintiff declared upon, instead of the promise implied by law and growing out of the relation of the parties as bailor and bailee of the animal for hire. It is true that the plaintiff and his witness to the contract of hiring, testify that both the defendant and his hostler recommended and warranted the horse, except in the matter of laziness, but that testimony was not…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Conn v. HunsbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
- Vaningan v. MuellerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1932
- Evans v. UpmierSupreme Court of Iowa · 1944