view raw text
SELLING UNSOUND HORSES Old English Case in Which Buyer Eecovered Damages for Defect Court Decides That Failure to Tell Purchaser Purchaserof of Horses Unsoumlness Constitutes a aFraud Fraud and Plaintiff AVins When the recent suit of Harry F Sinclair owner of the Rancocas Stable against James F Johnson owner of the Quincy Stable for recovery of the 100000 purchase price paid for Playfellow came to trial it was looked upon generally in turf circles as something unique in the annals of racing This coup ¬ led with the prominence of the parties in ¬ volved made the case one of the outstand ¬ ing features of the off season last winter winterBut But the Playfellow suit was not some ¬ thing new under the sun after all Turn ¬ ing to the American Turf Register for Octo ¬ ber 1830 the turf student finds an account rf a suit decided in the English courts of that time which so closely parallels the Playfellow case both in general points at issue and in the decision rendered as to be rather amazing to those familiar with the modern lawsuit This discussion is repro ¬ duced below ETHICS OF HOUSE TJIADIXC TJIADIXCIt It imports every one to know the law in regard to the sale of unsound horses It has been often remarked that here is is a particular and very latitudinarian code of morals for dealers in horses and some gentlemen of the strictest integrity in all things else who would shudder or start at the imputation of falsehood in any other case think that in the ex ¬ change or sale of horses suppressio veri is not quite tantamount to telling a falsehood We apprehend however that if A sell a horse to LI with the knowl ¬ edge that he has a capital defect which materially impairs his value and use ¬ fulness even though lie do not warrant him sound yet for not disclosing the existence of said defect B would be en ¬ titled to recover the difference between the price paid for the horse and his real reasonable value to be decided by a jury with a knowledge of his defects and such seems to have been the decision in the following case caseA A MODEUX DECISIOX IX THK COURT OF KINGS BENCH RELA ¬ TIVE TO AX UXSOUXD HORSE M30 G3 Lord Grantley vs General GeneralAinslie Ainslie AinslieThis This action was brought to recover of the defendant twenty pounds as the price of a gelding The counsel owned the defendant was a gentleman of the strictest honor The plaintiff Lord Grantley had a hunter that was un ¬ sound and therefore he wished to sell him For this purpose his lordship sent him to Tattersalls He was at first entered by mistake as a sound horse but the moment this mistake was per ¬ ceived it was corrected therefore when General Ainslie purchased him he took him at risk as the warrant was then expunged from the book The Rev Mr Fielding fully confirmed these observa ¬ tions by his evidence evidenceKXEAV KXEAV DEFECT OF HORSE HORSEHe He also said that his lordship knew that the horses eyes were weak that ne was worth twentyfive or thirty pounds and that if he had been sound he would have been worth fifty pounds that Lord Grantley did not warrant the horse sound that his lordship said he never would wouldAnother Another witness said that Lord Grant ley himself was at the stable the day the horse was intended to be taken away General Ainslie was then present speak ¬ ing to two gentlemen and must have heard Lord Grantley say that he would never warrant this horse sound He might be worth fifty pounds or he might not be worth five pounds When his lordship was coming away he told them they might take twenty pounds for him himLord Lord ICenyon observed that this was a cause between persons of considerable distinction but that it must be deter ¬ mined without any regard to personal considerations That there was no war ¬ ranty in this case was sufficiently proved If the person selling goods knows of no infirmity in what he exposes to sale he is not bound to disclose that which lie did not know and he may therefore retain the price priceA A MIDDLE CASE CASEBut But there was a middle case between these two extremes and the jury would consider whether this was not that mid ¬ dle case If a person knows there is some imperfection in a horse and sells him for sound I think said his lordship that person sins both against the law of morality and against the law of the land he ought to have disclosed every infirmity which he knew knewThat That Lord Grantley knew his horses eyes were weak was evident from the testimony of Mr Fielding There was another question in the case highly im ¬ portant and that was whether upon evi dence it appeared that the price this horse was sold for was adequate If it was he would not say that any fraud had been practiced His lordship stated the evidence on both sides that related to this point pointHe He said the case was reduced to this Whether the price at which the horse was sold was adequate to the situation in which Lord Grantley knew the horse was The whole was bottomed upon this That no man in possession of a secret fault of his property ought to take that property to market and take a sound price for it when the purchaser would not have given so high a price had this defect been disclosed to him by the seller Verdict for the plaintiff twenty pounds
