Carlton v. Hescox
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract on an account annexed for hay fed by the plaintiff to the defendant’s horse. At the trial in the superior court, before Dewey, J., it appeared that the plaintiff was a horse doctor, with whom the defendant left the horse to be doctored; that the horse remained with the plaintiff fifteen weeks ; and that it was during eight and a half weeks of this period that the plaintiff claimed to have fed the hay to the horse.
Read the full summary
Contract on an account annexed for hay fed by the plaintiff to the defendant’s horse. At the trial in the superior court, before Dewey, J., it appeared that the plaintiff was a horse doctor, with whom the defendant left the horse to be doctored; that the horse remained with the plaintiff fifteen weeks ; and that it was during eight and a half weeks of this period that the plaintiff claimed to have fed the hay to the horse. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that it was agreed by the parties that he should supply the horse’s feed while, the plaintiff was doctoring the horse; and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It did not appear that the horse in question was an ordinary horse; but as the defendant had left him with the plaintiff to be doctored, there was evidence that he was not in an ordinary condition. Therefore evidence as to how much hay an ordinary horse will eat or consume in a week was immaterial, and its rejection furnishes no ground of exception.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Gile v. AtkinsSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1899