Jessup v. Cook
Supreme Court of New Jersey
This was a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be had, on the ground that defendant had discovered new and Important evidence since the trial.
Read the full summary
This was a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be had, on the ground that defendant had discovered new and Important evidence since the trial. The case had been tried at Nisi JPrius, in Gloucester county, in June, 1796, before Kinsey, C. J. and Chetwood, J. It was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, and the declaration contained seven counts. 1. Indeb. ass. for goods sold and delivered. 2. Quantum meruit for the same. 3. A special court which stated that on the loth of June, 1784, in consideration that Jessup had entered into an obligation to one Taylor, as security for Oook, in the…
1Per curiam 1
The receipt in' 1789, no evidence to support a narr. of November ternq 1788; a payment subsequent to the placita is not evidence.
Leake objected, that Jessup himself, being one of the obligors in the bond, he could not offer receipts signed by the obligee to charge the other obligor.
*531 Per Curiam.
The evidence is unquestionably proper; it cannot certainly, of itself, have the effect of charging Cook and unless the plaintiff shews further, that he executed this bond merely in the character of surety, and that these payments were made by him, they will not be of much importance in this suit. The…
Also in this document: Per curiam 2; Per curiam 3; Per curiam 4.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Howard & Shattuck v. RansomSupreme Court of Vermont · 1827
- Rolette v. RoletteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1843