Harrison v. Evans
This text of 1 D.C. 364 (Harrison v. Evans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
(nem. con.) overruled the objection because the witness is indifferent. For although if the plaintiff recovers against Evans, Evans may recover against Darling; yet, if plaintiff does not recover against Evans, he may against Darling, so that he would be liable in either event.
The Court, also,
at the prayer of the defendant’s counsel, instructed the jury, in effect, that if the slave had a written authority from the plairitiff, without limitation of [365]*365time or place, to seek for a new master, the plaintiff could not recover in this action, although such authority was not shown to the defendant or his agents.
Verdict for plaintiff, $180. New trial refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 D.C. 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-evans-dcd-1806.