TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cahill v. Hall

James Cahill v. Amelia W. Hall

Cahill v. Hall, 37 N.E. 573 (Mass. 1894)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 20, 1894
Judges
Holmes
Citations
37 N.E. 573161 Mass. 5121894 Mass. LEXIS 232
Cited by 2
Headnotes
Contract — A utbority of Borrower to bind Lender for Keep of Horse. A person who lends a horse to another without more does not authorize the borrower to make him answerable for its keep or improvement.
Summary
Contract, for the board and expense of shoeing a horse. Writ dated March 15, 1892. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the defendant, to this court, on appeal, on agreed' facts, in substance as follows. In 1886 the defendant, who was the owner of a mare called Mayflower, said to her son, “ You take Mayflower and keep her until I call for her.” Her son thereupon took possession of the mare, and kept it until its death in 1889, and paid the expense of keeping it. In 1888 the defendant’s son, without her knowledge, raised a colt from the mare, and in 1890, without her knowledge or consent, employed the plaintiff to keep and train the colt for a carriage horse, agreeing to pay him therefor five dollars a week and the expense of shoeing. The defendant never had possession of the colt, and never gave any directions to her son regarding it, but after its birth she learned of the fact, and frequently saw it in the possession of her son. The plaintiff kept the colt for thirty-four weeks, and expended eight dollars for shoeing, and rendered a bill therefor to the defendant’s son. The defendant prior to the commencement of this action had no knowledge of the contract of her son with the plaintiff.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Holmes

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Holmes, J.

Whether the colt belonged to the defendant or to her son, the son had possession of it for his own benefit. Putting the case in the strongest way for the plaintiff, the defendant did no more than to lend the colt to her son. She did'not know of the contract with the plaintiff. Her son did not purport to contract on her behalf, nor did the plaintiff rely upon any supposed authority from her, or render the services on her credit. When one person lends a horse to another without more, he does not authorize the latter to make him answerable for its keep or improvement. See Storms v. Smith, 137 Mass. 201 ; Howes v. Newcomb, 146 Mass. 76, 80 . Possession alone is no more ostensible authority to bind the owner for keeping and training than it is to sell, apart from statute. Even if circumstances could be imagined under which, without an actual knowledge of the owner, consent might be implied sufficient to create a lien under Pub. Sts. c. 192, § 32, (Lynde v. Parker, 155 Mass. 481 ,) there is nothing in this case which would warrant the finding of an actual contract binding on the defendant. There is equally little ground for charging her upon a fictitious or quasi contract. The plaintiff furnished his services under a valid contract with the son, and must look to him.

Judgment for the defendant.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 2 cases

View all citing references →
1968: 11979: 119682026peak 1968 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Marshall601 P.2d 1169 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979)
  2. Circle v. O'Harra235 N.E.2d 252 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968)

Most recent

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Marshall601 P.2d 1169 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979)
  2. Circle v. O'Harra235 N.E.2d 252 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Howes v. Newcomb, 15 N.E. 123 (Mass. 1888) 26
Storms v. Smith, 137 Mass. 201 (1884) 20
Lynde v. Parker, 30 N.E. 74 (Mass. 1892) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list