Ray v. Thompson
This text of 66 Mass. 281 (Ray v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 [282]*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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 Mass. 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-thompson-mass-1853.