Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Sutton v. Temple | 152 Eng. Rep. 1108 (1843)

It may seem reasonable to assume that if you rent a field of grass, you can let your cattle graze there without being poisoned. But Sutton versus Temple teaches that you shouldn’t assume anything unless it’s included in the terms of your contract.

Thomas Temple contracted to lease Anne Sutton’s field for forty pounds. Temple intended to use the field to feed his cattle, though the lease didn’t specify any specific intended use. Unfortunately, Temple had no idea that Sutton’s field was covered with manure containing paint particles. After several of his cattle died after grazing on the contaminated grass, Temple vacated the property before the end of the lease and refused to pay Sutton, claiming that he wasn’t obligated to pay when the field was unsuitable for his intended purpose. Sutton sued Temple to recover the forty pounds. The jury concluded that Temple’s cattle were poisoned by the paint in Sutton’s field and that Temple was only required to pay Sutton twelve pounds for his time on the land. Temple filed a motion requesting that the court enter a verdict on his behalf. Sutton filed a motion requesting that the court increase her damages to twenty-six pounds.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть