Nichols v. Whiting
1 Root 443
Opinion
There is nothing! erroneous in the judgment complained of; the plea in bar is insufficient, in that it doth not particularize the articles of shopwork tendered', whereby they could be distinguished and known. Otherwise the plaintiff would be barred of his action, by the tender, without being able ever to recover the articles tendered, for want of being particularly distinguished and described.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Nichols v. Whiting, 1 Root 443 (Colo. 1792).
1 Root 443 (Nichols v. Whiting) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Stevenson v. Burgin
49 Pa. 36 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1865)
Vance v. Bloomer
20 Wend. 196 (New York Supreme Court, 1838)
Wyman v. Winslow
11 Me. 398 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1834)
Johnson v. Baird
3 Blackf. 182 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1833)
Smith v. Loomis
7 Conn. 110 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1828)