Custiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co.
This text of 6 F. Cas. 1013 (Custiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
stopped Mr. Key from reply, and instructed the [82]*82jury that the inquisition was not sufficient in law to support the plaintiff's action ; it appearing on the face of the inquisition, and by parol testimony, that all the jurors sworn did not agree thereto, although all signed it.
The plaintiff took a bill of exceptions, but did not prosecute a ■writ of error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
6 F. Cas. 1013, 2 D.C. 81, 2 Cranch 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/custiss-v-georgetown-alexandria-turnpike-co-circtddc-1813.