Arnold v. Cole
West Virginia Supreme Court
I. — Partial payments not provable without bill of particulars. —Code, c. 126, s. 4; 9 W. Ya. 858, 373. II. — Instruction to disregard evidence not always sufficient. — 56 Am. Rep. 816, note (100 Ind. 268); 56 Am. Rep. 815, note (92 Ind. 34); 56 Am. Rep. 812, and note p. 814. III. — Misconduct of Cole raises presumption against verdict.— 22 W. Ya. 44. cited 36 W. Ya. 690, 696; Bart. Law, Prac. p. 143, § 10; 33 W. Va. 29, 54; 29 W. Ya. 410; 1 S. E. Rep. 582; 10 S. E. Rep. 29.
1Opinion of the Court
Holt, President:
In this case the defendant pleaded generally conditions performed. The general rule is that the defendant must plead specially the performance of the covenant when he desires to rely upon the same as a defense to the action, and must, in general, show specially the time and manner of performance. See Norfolk, etc., R. Co. v. Suffolk Lumber Co., 92 Va. 413 (23 S. E. 737, 739); Snow v. Morgan, 18 R. I. 289 (27 Atl. 338); Jones v. Johnson, 10 Humph. 184; 4 Minor, Inst. pt. 2, p. 1202; Fenwick v. McMurdo, 2 Mumf. 244, 250 (arguments); 5 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 380, and cases noted;…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Simmons v. TrumboWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1876
- B. & O. R. R. v. JamesonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1878
- Norfolk & Carolina Railroad v. Suffolk Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1896
- Shanklin's Adm'r v. CrisamoreWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1870
- Snow v. HorganSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1893
3Cited by1 opinion
- Moundsville, Benwood & Wheeling Railway Co. v. WilsonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1902