Hall v. Blake

Ohio Supreme Court

Hall v. Blake

1 Wright 489, 1 Ohio Ch. 489

DecidedApril 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 489 (Hall v. Blake) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Blake, 1 Wright 489, 1 Ohio Ch. 489 (Ohio 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

If it was a non suit that was moved for and •ordered, it was properly moved and ordered, because of the failure -of the proof. The declaration contains only the common counts— the contract was special, and had been part performed. No step had been taken to abandon or put an end to it, and recover back the money paid; so far from it, the plaintiff held on to the contract, and the suit was to recover damages for its non performance. It was, in fact, a suit on the contract, which was a subsisting one, and -conferred no right to recover on the common counts. The record leaves it doubtful whether a non suit was ordered. We incline to construe it a non suit. The finding of the jury was improper; they should have been discharged. We reverse the proceedings as to all after the motion, but the costs; and under the law give judgment of non suit, leaving each party to pay half the costs on error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BY THE COURT.

If it was a non suit that was moved for and •ordered, it was properly moved and ordered, because of the failure -of the proof. The declaration contains only the common counts— the contract was special, and had been part performed. No step had been taken to abandon or put an end to it, and recover back the money paid; so far from it, the plaintiff held on to the contract, and the suit was to recover damages for its non performance. It was, in fact, a suit on the contract, which was a subsisting one, and -conferred no right to recover on the common counts. The record leaves it doubtful whether a non suit was ordered. We incline to construe it a non suit. The finding of the jury was improper; they should have been discharged. We reverse the proceedings as to all after the motion, but the costs; and under the law give judgment of non suit, leaving each party to pay half the costs on error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 489, 1 Ohio Ch. 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-blake-ohio-1834.