Dunn v. Whitney
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was an action of assumpsit for the price of certain lottery tickets, as per account annexed to the writ, which was as follows, viz.: — 1826, Dec. 28, To tickets, $29, 00 “ 1827, Jan. 15, ” tickets, 29, 00 “ ” Feb. 13, ” tickets, 29, 00 Cr. $87, 00 “ 1827, March 27, By return tickets, $48, 48 “ 1828, Jan.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit for the price of certain lottery tickets, as per account annexed to the writ, which was as follows, viz.: — 1826, Dec. 28, To tickets, $29, 00 “ 1827, Jan. 15, ” tickets, 29, 00 “ ” Feb. 13, ” tickets, 29, 00 Cr. $87, 00 “ 1827, March 27, By return tickets, $48, 48 “ 1828, Jan. By do. do. 12, 22 $60, 70 Balance due, The writ contained one count of indebitatus assumpsit referring to the account annexed, and another of quantum valebant for the value of the tickets. Plea, the general issue. The plaintiff to support his charges, offered his account books in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Parris J.
From the exceptions it appears that, originally at the trial in the Court below, the defendant was charged, in appropriate counts, as purchaser of a quantity of lottery tickets, and that, in the progress of the trial, the plaintiff, failing to support these counts, was, on motion, permitted to amend by adding a new one for money had and received.
Under the latter count, the defendant was charged as the agent or factor of the .plaintiff in vending the lottery tickets specified in the bill of particulars annexed to the writ. Previous to filing…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Bailey v. HarveySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1880