Tried below before Hon. A. E. Amerman. Heath purchased from Williamson a bull for breeding purposes, paying therefor the sum of $350, on the 7th day of April, 1903. Williamson guaranteed that the bull was a breeder and agreed to refund the difference between $350 and the value of the bull for beef in the event the bull proved impotent upon satisfactory proof of that fact being made.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1908-02-18
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently October 1961
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
— The contract of Williamson was not alone a verbal guarantee that the bull was a breeder, but that he would refund the purchase money, less the value of the bull for beef, upon satisfactory proof that the bull was barren. Appellee had no cause of action until this satisfactory proof was made, and this was not done until within two years of the filing of the suit. There was no unreasonable delay on appellee’s part. We hold that the two years statute applies. The judgment is affirmed.
