Loose v. Stanford

SEARLS, C. This action was brought December 2, 1891, against the testator, Leland Stanford, to recover possession of a trotting mare commonly known as “Hinda Rose,” or for the recovery of $50,000, the value of said Hinda Rose, in case a delivery of said mare cannot be had, and $25,000 damages, etc. Defendant answered, denying the ownership of plaintiff; averred that about February, 1880, he purchased said Hinda Rose from the plaintiff, and ever since has been, and still is, the owner of, and in possession of, said mare, etc. Defendant further pleads the bar of plaintiff’s cause of action under subdivision 3 of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant departed this life pendente lite, and Jane L. Stanford, the executrix of his last will, was substituted as defendant. The claim of plaintiff was presented to the executrix for allowance, and was by her rejected, which matters were set up by supplemental complaint. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, written findings filed, in favor of defendant, upon the issues of ownership and the statute of limitations, upon which findings judgment went for defendant, from which judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

The entire question in the case turns upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the court. Counsel for appellant contend that there is practically no dispute as to the facts, and that the issues involved are of law. They then proceed to demonstrate that, upon the facts as assumed by them, Leland Stanford was the bailee of a mare known as “Beautiful Bells”; that, while in his possession, this mare gave birth to the colt Hinda Rose; that plaintiff sold the mare, but not the colt, to Stanford; that as a result the animal Hinda Rose remained in possession of Stanford, as bailee, for some twelve years, when plaintiff demanded possession of her, which was refused; that this refusal operated as a conversion; and that, as the action was brought within three years next thereafter, the cause of action is not barred by the statute of limitations, and hence that plaintiff is entitled to recover. Assuming the premises of appellant’s counsel to be correct, we agree fully with their conclusion. We think, however, that, while there is no substantial conflict in the evidence as to the main [368]probative facts, the inferences to be deduced therefrom—the ultimate facts upon which the ease turns—are open to grave doubt; and while, upon the case as presented by the record, we are not impelled with mathematical certainty to the result reached by the court below, there are yet cogent reasons leading to such result. The testimony is too lengthy for recapitulation. The following summary will convey some idea of its trend. The plaintiff lived at Bodie, Mono county, and was the owner of Beautiful Bells, a brood mare. Defendant, Leland Stanford, was the owner of Palo Alto ranch, upon which he was conducting the business of stock-breeding, and rearing trotting and running horses. In March, 1879, plaintiff caused his mare Beautiful Bells to be sent to Stanford’s stock farm, where she was mated with Electioneer, a stallion owned and kept by Stanford. The mare remained on the ranch until the following spring, when, on February 27th, she gave birth to a colt, the subject of the litigation in this cause. Early in the winter Stanford had seen and admired Beautiful Bells, and had authorized Harris F. Covey, his superintendent, to purchase her, if he could do so at a reasonable figure. F. W. Covey, who was at times secretary, and at others assistant superintendent of the stock farm, held a power of attorney from plaintiff authorizing him to sell Beautiful Bells to Stanford for $2,000. This was more than Stanford was willing to give, and the negotiations were broken off until the month of March or 1st of April, 1880 (after the birth of the colt), when plaintiff telegraphed accepting an offer on behalf of Stanford to pay $1,200, and remit a bill of $200 and upward, ranch fees, etc., upon the mare. The money was paid to plaintiff, and the mare and colt sold to Stanford, or, as the witness F. W. Covey says: “Under that power of attorney, I sold Beautiful Bells and her filly, and made the transfers on the books of the Palo Alto stock farm at that date. The books show placed to the credit of Leland Stanford.” The negotiations for the sale were both before and after the birth of the filly, of which last fact plaintiff was advised; and Stanford understood, and has always claimed, that he purchased both the dam and colt. Thus matters rested for, say, eleven years, during which the filly, Hinda Rose, was trained as a trotter, making phenomenal speed, and in her yearling, two and three year old, form, beating the then world’s record for trotters. At three years of age she broke down, and became useless as