Henry v. Dillard
Henry v. Dillard
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
We concur in the findings of facts and the judgment of the court below. Those facts, fairly considered, put the rights of the appellee to the property in suit, wholly outside of the reach of the rule established by section 1178, of our code.
The court, too, correctly refused to vacate the judgment, because, as alleged in appellant’s motion for a new trial, there was no separate finding of the value of each article. A mare and her young offspring may¿ we think, be properly considered, according to common understanding, as so necessarily and intimately connected together, as to constitute one whole. In Drane v. Hilzheim, 13 S. & M. 336, a barouche and harness, were regarded as parts of one whole, and the court refused to award a new trial, because but one value was placed by the jury upon both. ■ The union of a dam and her tender offspring must be conceded to be more intimate than that between a vehicle and its harness.
We eoneur in the judgment of the circuit court, and the same is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Wm. Henry v. Mattie Dillard
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Husband and Wine. Transfer between. Code I860, § 1178. Case. A husband bargained for a horse but failed to pay therefor, and by agreement with the seller, his wife was substituted to his purchase and paid the price with the proceeds of cotton which her husband gave her for assisting in his crop. She traded the horse for a mare. Held, in replevin by her against one claiming the mare under a trust-deed from her husband, that her acquisition of title was not within the meaning of § 1178, code 1880, which avoids, as to all third persons, unrecorded transfers between husband and wife. 2. Replevin. Verdict. Separate valuation. A verdict in replevin will not be set aside because the jury fail to separately value a mare and her young colt, these being so intimately connected as to be ordinarily considered as one.