Logourl black
From our private database of 13,500+ case briefs...

Bailey v. West

Supreme Court of Rhode Island
249 A.2d 414 (R.I. 1969)


On April 27, 1962, West (defendant) purchased a race horse named “Bascom’s Folly” from Dr. Strauss. Upon delivery of the horse to West, West’s trainer discovered the horse was lame and unsuitable for racing. The trainer informed West, who told him to ship the horse back to Dr. Strauss in a van. Dr. Strauss refused to accept delivery of the returned horse. The van’s driver called West’s trainer who told him to dispose of the horse, as West would not keep it. Upon instruction from Dr. Strauss’s trainer, the driver then brought the horse to a farm owned by Bailey (plaintiff). At the time of delivery, Bailey was unaware of who owned the horse. The horse remained and was cared for at Bailey’s farm from May 3, 1962 through July 3, 1966, when it was sold by Bailey. During this time, Bailey sent monthly bills to both Dr. Strauss and West for the expense of feeding and boarding the horse. After receiving the first bill, West returned it to Bailey, stating that since he received a lame horse from Dr. Strauss, he was not its owner and would not pay for the horse’s care. In Strauss v. West, 216 A.2d 366 (1966), however, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held the horse was “sound” upon delivery to West and West was liable to Dr. Strauss for the purchase price. Bailey brought suit against West in Rhode Island Superior Court to recover the value of his services provided in feeding, caring for, and maintaining the horse at his farm. Relying on the determination in Strauss v. West that West owned the horse, the trial judge held there was a contract “implied in fact” between West and Bailey to board the horse, and that even if such a contract did not exist, West was liable to Bailey under a quasi-contract. The trial judge granted Bailey five months of pay for his services. Both West and Bailey appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.


The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Paolino, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 154,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,500 briefs, keyed to 184 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.