Dusenberry v. Alford
West Virginia Supreme Court
Action of assumpsit, to November rules, 1866. Judgment by tbe court, at May term, 1870, for the plaintiff; in the circuit court of Cabell county. The defendant moved the court for a new trial, on the -ground that the judgment was contrary to law and evidence.
Read the full summary
Action of assumpsit, to November rules, 1866. Judgment by tbe court, at May term, 1870, for the plaintiff; in the circuit court of Cabell county. The defendant moved the court for a new trial, on the -ground that the judgment was contrary to law and evidence. The following is the evidence as it appeared in the bill of exceptions: “ That in the year 1865 an order of sale made in a cause in ■which Thomas J. Hayslip was plaintiff, and Thomas J. Jenkins, Peter C. Buffington, William H. Buffington, and others were. defendants, which order was made upon suggestions filed in pursuance of the statute…
1Opinion of the CourtMaxwell, J.
This was an action of assumpsit to recover the price of a piano, alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The trial was by the court, in lieu of a jury, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant asked for a new trial on the ground that the judgment was contrary to the law and evidence in the cause, which was refused, and the opinion of the court refusing a new trial excepted to. The bill of exceptions purports to be a certificate of the facts proved on the trial, but it is in fact only a certificate of the evidence. The evidence is not sufficiently clear…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rich. Fred. & Pot. R. R. v. Snead & SmithSupreme Court of Virginia · 1869
3Cited by3 opinions
- Stoneman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1874
- Stoneman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1874
- Stoneman v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1874