34 Miss. 262 | Miss. | 1857
delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action upon a warranty of soundness of a horse, brought in the name of the defendant in error, to whom the warranty was given.
The case presents the single question, whether, where the party suing holds the legal title, a recovery can be defeated, upon allegation and proof that the equitable and beneficial ownership is in another person ?
A legal title is the necessary foundation of every action at law.
If, in point of fact, the defendant in error was the mere agent of Mrs. Doss, and consequently was not beneficially interested in the transaction, he was, nevertheless, legally entitled to the damages arising from a breach of the warranty; and the only party in whose name the suit could have been maintained. Hence, according to the view above expressed, evidence as to the fact, whether he was or was not beneficially interested in the recovery, was irrelevant. The court was, therefore, correct, even admitting the proof to be competent under the answer, which contains a general denial of the allegations of the complaint, in refusing to permit the witness to answer the questions propounded to him by the counsel for the plaintiff in error.
Judgment affirmed.