Smith v. Jones

New York Supreme Court

Smith v. Jones

15 Johns. 229

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1818

StatusPublished

Cited by33 cases

This text of 15 Johns. 229 (Smith v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Jones, 15 Johns. 229 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only matter in question in these? causes, is the three barrels of pot ashes. There is no pretence, from any part of the evidence, that these ashes were sold at different times, or in different parcels ; but the natural and necessary conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is, that it was an entire contract for the whole quantity; and yet the plaintiff has set up and divided this entire demand into separate suits, which of itself would be a fatal objection to the judgments. But independent of this, there was no proof to sustain the recovery. The same testimony that proved the sale, proved' also the payment. [230]*230(3 Johns. Rep. 427. 9 Johns. Rep. 141.) Besides, the great delay on the part of the plaintiff in bringing these actians, casts a suspicion on the claim; and more particularly as he waited until the witness was dead, from whom he himself had learnt, that he could swear to payment. The judgments must be reversed.

Judgments reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

The only matter in question in these? causes, is the three barrels of pot ashes. There is no pretence, from any part of the evidence, that these ashes were sold at different times, or in different parcels ; but the natural and necessary conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is, that it was an entire contract for the whole quantity; and yet the plaintiff has set up and divided this entire demand into separate suits, which of itself would be a fatal objection to the judgments. But independent of this, there was no proof to sustain the recovery. The same testimony that proved the sale, proved' also the payment. [230]*230(3 Johns. Rep. 427. 9 Johns. Rep. 141.) Besides, the great delay on the part of the plaintiff in bringing these actians, casts a suspicion on the claim; and more particularly as he waited until the witness was dead, from whom he himself had learnt, that he could swear to payment. The judgments must be reversed.

Judgments reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Johns. 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-jones-nysupct-1818.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack