« Back to Case Topics
Court Procedures
Ammon v. Kaplow, 468 F. Supp. 1304 (D. Kan. 1979).
A Kansas resident sued a New York seller of a horse for breach of warranty. The horse had been purchased after the buyer responded to an advertisement placed by the seller in a horse journal of general circulation. The buyer picked up the horse in Ohio, and delivered it back to Kansas himself. After arrival in Kansas, the buyer determined that the horse was not as represented. The Kansas federal court ruled that Kansas had jurisdiction because the alleged misrepresentation caused an effect in Kansas, and because the contract was to be performed in Kansas because payment was made from Kansas.
Biggelaar v. Wagner, 978 F. Supp. 848 (N.D. Ind. 1997).
American horse breeder boarded horses with a Netherlands boarding farm under a contract that provided for a choice of forum in the United States. However, the American breeder sued in the Netherlands, and the Dutch defendant counterclaimed. Although the American breeder won at the trial level, the Netherlands Appellate Court ruled in favor of the Dutch defendant. The Dutch defendant then attempted to domesticate his judgment in the United States, and the American breeder took the position that the Netherlands courts were without jurisdiction. The United States court ruled that despite the forum selection clause, the American Breeder had waived its jurisdiction defense by initiating the action in the Netherlands.
Contraves Inc. v. McDonald Douglas Corp., 889 F. Supp. 470 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
This case involved the enforceability of a "forum selection clause" in a contract. It was not a horse case, but in the opinion upholding the clause, Judge Merryday raised a question in a footnote about whether horse purchase contracts between a California buyer and an Ocala, Florida seller could stipulate to venue in Lexington or Louisville, Kentucky, "where many lawyers and judges enjoy a lifetime of experience with the nuances of the equine industry?"
Coronia v. American Reliable Insurance Co., 999 F. Supp. 299, 1998 WL 148420 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).
Insured, who raced horses in New York, brought action in New York against Canadian insurer and broker. Broker moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that broker's activities in soliciting the coverage in New York constituted doing business in New York so as to justify jurisdiction over the broker.
Dall v. Kaylor, 558 A.2d 78 (Vt. 1995).
Vermont resident sued Maryland defendants from breach of warranty in connection with the purchase of a horse. The Vermont Supreme Court held that the courts had jurisdiction over the Maryland residents because they advertised their business nationally.
Falcon v. Faulkner, 903 P.2d 197 (Mont. 1995).
Breeding contract provided that the mare owner could return a subsequent year if mare failed to get in foal the first year. However, assignor of the breeding contract caused stallion owner to refuse the second breeding because mare owner had not paid for the contract. Mare owner sued assignor and stallion owner in Montana, but they failed to appear. The court refused to set aside the default judgment entered against them.
Garner-Roe v. Anderson, 894 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. App. 1995).
Default judgment was entered against horse owner on claim for boarding and training fees. Appeals court held that judgment should have been set aside because owner had a meritorious defense and because of misdeeds of plaintiff.
Gluck v. Fasig-Tipton Co., 310 N.Y.S.2d 809 (Special Term 1970).
Buyer of mare at New York auction sued Kentucky veterinarian who falsely certified that mare was pregnant. The court held that New York did not have jurisdiction over the veterinarian, as the exam and certification occurred in Kentucky, not New York, even though the veterinarian knew the certification would be used in a New York auction. |
|
|
Hoffmann v. FasigTipton New York, Inc., 1991 WL 5867 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
Disgruntled purchaser of horse at auction sought to stay arbitration proceeding brought by auction company by filing a claim in New York state court. The defendant auction company removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, even though it was a New York corporation. The federal court remanded the action to state court because the removal was improper, holding that the auction company was not a mere nominal party for purposes of diversity jurisdiction.
Marsh v. Illinois Racing Board, 689 N.E. 2d 1113 (Ill. 1997).
Owner and driver of standardbred horses had his license revoked for allegedly engaging in an unlawful betting scheme. He appealed to the decision to the circuit court of Cook County, which stayed the administrative decision pending review. The licensing board sought an emergency order from the Illinois Court of Appeals, which set aside the stay of the circuit court. The owner/driver appealed that decision to the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled that the Court of Appeals had no authority to set aside a lower court stay.
Moyglare Stud Farm, Ltd. v. Due Process Stable, Inc., 562 F. Supp. 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1983).
Buyer, a New Jersey corporation whose principal resided in New York, revoked acceptance of horse purchased from seller, a Irish company. The seller sued for a declaration that the revocation was invalid, in federal court in New York. The court held that venue was proper there, although neither party resided in New York, because the cause of action arose in New York.
Saratoga Harness Racing, Inc. v. Veneglia, 897 F. Supp. 38 (N.D.N.Y. 1995).
Harness track located in New York sued New Jersey owner's association in New York. The district court held that the New York court had jurisdiction over claim because simulcasting agreement was a contract to provide services in New York.
Simpson v. Widger, 709 A.2d 1366 (N.J. Super. A.D. 1998).
Buyer of show horse in 1989 sued seller for fraud and breach of warranty when the horse developed ringbone disease in 1994. The seller allegedly assured the buyer that the horse was sound. The court, relying on Norton and Sessa, that the warranty of "soundness" meant that the horse was "serviceably sound", not free from problems that could affect the performance of the horse. The court also held that no fraud had been shown because there was no evidence that the seller believed that the presence of ringbone might affect the horse's serviceability and resale value. Finally, the court held that limitations had run on the warranty claim, despite the delay in discovery of the defect.
Stewart v. Shanahan, 277 F.2d 233 (8th Cir. 1960).
Buyer sued in federal court for misrepresentation and breach of warranty upon a purchase of $3,750 show horse. The district court dismissed buyer's claims for mental anguish because they were unrecoverable under these claims. The buyer thus did not have a sufficient amount in controversy to invoke diversity jurisdiction in federal court. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that if the mental distress allegations were made in good faith, jurisdiction in federal court was proper.
White v. Roberts, 454 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. App. 1995).
Purchasers of horse sued sellers and veterinarian for fraud and breach of warranty in connection with the sale of a horse in Nebraska. The Georgia court ruled it did not have jurisdiction over the Nebraska defendants.
« Back to Case Topics |
|
