Legal Opinion

Reeder v. Jones

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided May 2, 1902No. Action of Assumpsit No.-PublishedCited by 11 opinions

to re- cover the sum of $100, with interest from July 13, 1897, for work and labor done by the plaintiff for the defendant under a promise to pay. The action was based upon the common counts, and also on the special count for the sale of a farm in Mispillion Hundred by the plaintiff, for which the defendant, it was alleged, promised to pay the plaintiff the above mentioned sum for his services in and about effecting said sale.

Read the full summary

to re- cover the sum of $100, with interest from July 13, 1897, for work and labor done by the plaintiff for the defendant under a promise to pay. The action was based upon the common counts, and also on the special count for the sale of a farm in Mispillion Hundred by the plaintiff, for which the defendant, it was alleged, promised to pay the plaintiff the above mentioned sum for his services in and about effecting said sale. The pleas were non assumpsit, payment, discount, set-off and statute of limitations. Reps and issues. At the trial the plaintiff Reeder testified in substance that in…

1Opinion of the Court

Lore, C. J.:

A majority of the Court think the question is not admissible in cross examination.

Charles Reeder and Frederick Schultz corroborated the main points of the testimony of the plaintiff.

The defendant testified in effect that while he had casually mentioned to the plaintiff on one occasion that he had a farm for sale and that afterwards the plaintiff cme to see him, there was no understanding or agreement between them about tho sale of the farm. That Mr. Henselman had come to see the de*68fendant about the farm and that all the transactions he had in the matter were directly with the…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Model Heating Co. v. MagaritySupreme Court of Delaware · 1911
  2. E. A. Strout Co. v. HowellSupreme Court of Delaware · 1913
  3. Mannus-Dewall v. SmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
  4. Eastern Commercial Realty Corp. v. FuscoSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995
  5. Mendolia v. ZakrzewskiSuperior Court of Delaware · 1941

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API