Loreaux v. Mange
This text of 1 Ant. N.P. Cas. 317 (Loreaux v. Mange) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
severely censured the proceedings of the
defendant, and then stated that he was not prepared to say [319]*319that the defendant’s oath concluded him as to the value, although a celebrated judge, in England, had so held at Nisi Prius. That he would, however, leave it to the jury to fix the price from the evidence in the case, if any could be found on which they could rely. He, however, would strongly recommend them to take the defendant’s oath, in this case, as the true estimate.
The jury, after many hours absence, were discharged, not being able to agree.
Logan and Anthon, for plaintiff.
Gutting and Russell, for defendant.
Champlin v. Buller, 18 Johns. 168; Ring et al. v. Franklin, 2 Halk, 9; Weston v. Penniman, 1 Mason, 306.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Ant. N.P. Cas. 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loreaux-v-mange-superctny-1835.