Hynes v. Hickey
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
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Grant, J.
The defendant agreed with the plaintiff to feed and properly care for a mare and colt for a certain length of time. Defendant received and kept them. Plaintiff paid the consideration agreed upon, and after-wards brought this suit, to recover damages for the alleged failure to feed and care for them as the contract provided. Plaintiff received verdict and judgment for $25.
Two errors, are assigned:
1. Plaintiff was asked the breed of the mare. To this defendant’s counsel said, “ Objected to as incompetent.” The objection was not sufficiently specific, and cannot be *189 considered, since the ground of the objection was not apparent. Stevens v. Hope, 52 Mich. 65 ; Rivard v. Rivard, ante, 97, and authorities there cited.
2. Plaintiff introduced evidence tending legitimately to show that the animals were returned in bad condition, and that this was due to want of proper care and food. It was not error to instruct the jury that the burden of proof was then cast upon the defendant to show other cause, if there was any, for their bad condition. Collins v. Bennett, 46 N. Y. 490 .
Judgment affirmed.
Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.