White v. Sanders

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

White v. Sanders

32 Me. 188

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1850·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Tenney, J.,

orally.—The instruction as to the demand was correct.

The defendants’ counsel requested certain instructions. But the mere knowledge by the plaintiffs of the sale to the defendants, and their receipt from Getchell of money on account of the goods, would not necessarily be a ratification. The modi[190]*190fication of requested instruction was rightfully made by the Judge. Exceptions overruled.

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

Tenney, J.,

orally.—The instruction as to the demand was correct.

The defendants’ counsel requested certain instructions. But the mere knowledge by the plaintiffs of the sale to the defendants, and their receipt from Getchell of money on account of the goods, would not necessarily be a ratification. The modi[190]*190fication of requested instruction was rightfully made by the Judge. Exceptions overruled.

White v. Sanders, 32 Me. 188 (Me. 1850).

Pincite

32 Me. 188 (White v. Sanders) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related