Court Opinion

ID: 6410146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:52:04.20744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:20.684246
License: Public Domain

By the Court.
The evidence offered by the plaintiff ought to have been admitted, to prove, if he could, that the horse had been abused and injured by the defendant, and so to show that the defendant had put it out of his power to comply with the condition, by returning the horse. The sale was on a condition subsequent; that is, on condition he did not elect to keep the horse, to return him within the time limited. Being on a condition subsequent, the property vested presently in the vendee, defeasible only on the performance of the condition. If the defendant, in the meantime, disabled himself from performing the condition,— and if the horse was substantially injured by the defendant by such abuse, he would be so disabled, — then the sale became absolute, the obligation to pay the price became unconditional, and the *282plaintiff might declare as upon an indebitatus assumpsit, without setting out the conditional contract. Moss v. Sweet, 3 Eng. Law & Eq. 311; 16 Ad. & El. N. R. 493.

New trial ordered