Court Opinion

ID: 6415482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:55:50.953249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:32.203486
License: Public Domain

Wells, J.
Upon the facts stated in this case, there was a bailment and not a sale of the horse. The only contract, aside from the obligations implied by law, must be derived from the statement of the defendant, that, if the plaintiff “ would let him take the horse and try it, if he did not like it he would return it in as good condition as he got it.” This contract, it is true, is *200silent as to what was to take place if he should like it, or if ha should not return it. It may perhaps be fairly inferred that the intent was that if he did like the horse he was to become the purchaser at the price named. But, even if that were expressed, the sale would not take effect until the defendant should determine the question of his liking. An option to purchase if he liked is essentially different from an option to return a purchase if he should not like. In one case the title will not pass until the option is determined; in the other the property passes at once, subject to the right to rescind and return.
A mere failure to return the horse within the time agreed may be a breach of contract, upon which the plaintiff is entitled to an appropriate remedy; but has no such legal effect as to convert the bailment into a sale. It might be evidence of a determination, by the defendant, of his option to purchase. But it would be only evidence. In this case, the accident to the horse, before an opportunity was had for trial in order to determine the option, deprives it of all force, even as evidence.
This action, being founded solely upon an alleged sale of the horse for an agreed price, cannot be maintained upon the evidence reported. Exceptions overruled.