Bailey v. West

Richard West (defendant) rejected a lame racehorse he had bought and directed it be returned to the seller, but the seller refused it and the horse was instead shipped to Howard Bailey's (plaintiff's) farm; Bailey knew there was already a dispute over who owned the horse but boarded it anyway and billed West monthly. As soon as West got the first bill, he told Bailey he did not own the horse and would not pay. Bailey sued for the boarding costs on theories of contract implied in fact and quasi-contract; the trial court found an implied-in-fact contract but limited West's liability to the period before he sent his notice disclaiming ownership, and both sides appealed.