Dusenberry v. Alford
This text of 5 W. Va. 115 (Dusenberry v. Alford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This was an action of assumpsit to recover the price of a piano, alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The trial was by the court, in lieu of a jury, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant asked for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was contrary to the law and evidence in the cause, which was refused, and the opinion of the court refusing a new trial excepted to. The bill of exceptions purports to be a certificate of the facts proved on the trial, but it is in fact only a certificate of the evidence. The evidence is not sufficiently clear to make it the duty of this court to reverse the judgment complained of. R. F. & P. R. R. Co. vs. Snead & Smith, 19 Gratt., 354.
The judgment must be affirmed, with damages and costs..
Judgment affirjied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
5 W. Va. 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dusenberry-v-alford-wva-1872.