Alexander v. Dutton
Alexander v. Dutton.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Allen, J.
The defendant’s contention, that, as matter of law, corns in a horse’s feet do not constitute unsoundness, cannot be sustained.
*283 The court cannot take judicial notice of the fact (if it be a fact) that corns are never so serious as to amount to unsoundness. The law gives a general definition of unsoundness, and leaves it to the trier of the facts to find whether the infirmity of corns, in a particular case, is within the legal definition of unsoundness, — whether that defect materially diminishes the value of the horse and his ability to perform service. Such a diminution of value and ability is an unsoundness, although it be temporary and curable.
Kiddell v. Burnard, 9 M.
& W. 668;
Roberts v. Jenkins, 21 N. H. 116, 119, 120.
Judgment on the verdict.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.