Jones v. Hopkins

Superior Court of Delaware

Jones v. Hopkins

106 A. 287, 30 Del. 334, 7 Boyce 334, 1919 Del. LEXIS 32

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedMarch 24, 1919

DocketForeign Attachment, No. 14

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A. 287 (Jones v. Hopkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Hopkins, 106 A. 287, 30 Del. 334, 7 Boyce 334, 1919 Del. LEXIS 32 (Del. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Boyce. J.:

The defendant admits owing a balance to the plaintiff. This sum he might have paid into court under Rule 78, and then as to the balance of plaintiff’s demand, had recourse to the remedy of interpleader, afforded by Rev. Code 1915, § 4201, and Rule 95, thereby relieving himself of the controversy between the plaintiff and Mr. Bader, who claims ownership of part of the screenings delivered to the defendant. The course suggested was not adopted. It is the opinion of the court that the interpleader statute does not operate as a repealer of the rule of law that under the plea' of non assumpsit the vendee of goods can show that a person other than the vendor owned the goods sold. The objection to the admission of the testimony offered is overruled.

The plaintiff had a verdict for the amount admitted to be due him by the defendant.

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

Boyce. J.:

The defendant admits owing a balance to the plaintiff. This sum he might have paid into court under Rule 78, and then as to the balance of plaintiff’s demand, had recourse to the remedy of interpleader, afforded by Rev. Code 1915, § 4201, and Rule 95, thereby relieving himself of the controversy between the plaintiff and Mr. Bader, who claims ownership of part of the screenings delivered to the defendant. The course suggested was not adopted. It is the opinion of the court that the interpleader statute does not operate as a repealer of the rule of law that under the plea' of non assumpsit the vendee of goods can show that a person other than the vendor owned the goods sold. The objection to the admission of the testimony offered is overruled.

The plaintiff had a verdict for the amount admitted to be due him by the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A. 287, 30 Del. 334, 7 Boyce 334, 1919 Del. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-hopkins-delsuperct-1919.