Woodruff v. Laflin
Supreme Court of Arkansas
This was an action of assumpsit, determined in the Pulaski Circuit Court, in March, 1841, before the Hon. John J. Ceendenin, one •of the circuit judges. Laflin, Stevens & Co. sued Woodruff for goods, wares, and merchandise, and for money lent and advanced to, and paid, laid out, and expended for, Woodruff. Woodruff' pleaded non assumpsit, to which issue was joined.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, determined in the Pulaski Circuit Court, in March, 1841, before the Hon. John J. Ceendenin, one •of the circuit judges. Laflin, Stevens & Co. sued Woodruff for goods, wares, and merchandise, and for money lent and advanced to, and paid, laid out, and expended for, Woodruff. Woodruff' pleaded non assumpsit, to which issue was joined. He also filed a plea of set-off, for moneys lent and advanced to, and paid &c. for, .Laflin, Stevens & Co.; for money had and received; for money due as interest, upon an account stated; and also, for $1000, for that, on the 17th…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Dickinson, J.
it is true, the bill of exceptions does not state that all the evidence is set out. But we do not conceive that it was one of those cases in which the presumptions of law are in favor of the verdict, upon the ground that there may have been other sufficient evidence to support it. The depositions were read. We are ignorant of the influence they may have had upon the finding <of the jury; and it is presumed they had some influence, or the plaintiff below would not have introduced them. We have declared they were not proper testimony. Upon the same principle, this…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Taylor v. Coolidge & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1856