Page 109 - Latent Defect or Excessive Price?Exploring Early Modern Legal Approach to Remedying Defects in Goods Exchanged for Money - Bruijn

EARLY MODERN CASTILAN LAW
or make restitution of how much they are judged to be worth less because of that. Non- corporeal defects are whether a horse is timid, or a draught animal is malicious, kicking, etc.'.142
However, regarding slaves inclined to steal or to flee, Molina does not seem to make a clear choice between ius commune doctrine and the provisions in the Siete Partidas, of which he believes that these treat slaves prone to stealing and fleeing in a like manner.143
3.3.1.1.1 Legal practice
One case brought before the Royal Chancery of Valladolid slightly touches upon the question whether a remedy for returning the thing could be brought in the event of a non- corporeal defect in a horse. We just saw that the Siete Partidas did not consider that problematic, whereas López, Molina and Hevia Bolaño kept to the medieval ius commune view that a rescission is only possible in the event the seller knew of the defect. How was the matter decided by the Royal Chancery's judges?
In the year 1571, Antonio de la Vega Sanz of Valladolid brought a plea before the Royal Chancery. He had bought a horse from Pedro de Hortiz de Villalones and his son which turned out not to bear spurs and to be indomitable (muy bravo). This caused Vega Sanz considerable trouble and even produced an embarrassing scene at the entry of the royal family in Valladolid, when his horse, supposedly impressed by the pompous royal fanfare, took the heels, spurning his master's effort to keep it under control.144 Hortiz and his son had not told Vega Sanz about the horse's difficult character.
According to medieval ius commune-doctrine, the defects the horse suffered from were non-corporeal to which the actio redhibitoria did not apply. The buyer could only rescind the sale because of a non-corporeal defect, if the seller knew of it or had given a warranty.145 A hint that this was no longer thought to be so in Castilian practice, can be gathered from Hortiz' defense.
'the horse, about which is this lawsuit, is among vets and experts in the field not considered defective nor has it shortcomings substantially enough, so that is worth less, nor is there room for the action for returning the thing, for which reasons and for
142 Molina, De iustitia, vol. 2, disp. 353, no. 8, p. 245: 'Hoc loco observa, ut l. ob quae vitia, ff. de aedil. edict. \[D. 21.1.4\] habetur, hoc esse discrimen inter vitia animi et corporis. De vitio vero animi non tenetur, nisi id in pactum deducatur, venditorque promittat, si iumentum, aut servus, tale, vel tale animi vitium habere comperiatur, rescindet venditionem, aut restituet, quantum minus ea de causa iudicatum fuerit valere. Vitia autem animi sunt, si equus sit timidus, si jumentum sit malitiosum, recalcitret, et his similia.'.
143 Molina, De iustitia, vol. 2, disp. 353, no. 8, p. 245: 'Lex tamen Castellae 64. tit. 5. par. 5 \[SP 5.5.64\] paria videtur efficere venditorem ignorantem servum esse furem, id non detegere, et non detegere vitium fugitivi, atque utrobique concedere videtur actionem quanto minoris. Nisi dicas exponendam esse juxta ius commune'.
144 Pl. civ., F. Alonso (f.), caja 494, 3 (1571), sc. 58: 'quando la reyna nuestra señora | vino a esta villa de Toledo en la | placa con el dicho Antonio Sanz | que estava en el dicho cavallo | le vio el testigo que hico muy rrixo | e se empuño dos veces con el | e fue nescesario salirse della | placa por el alborado | que hacia en ella'.
145 See 2.2.1.1.
97