Buntin v. Lagow
Indiana Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Knox Circuit Court. — In this case Lagow ■and Rose were the plaintiffs below, and Buntin the defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtBlackford, J.
Assumpsit for goods, wares, and merchandize. Pleas, non-assumpsit and the statute of limitations. The Court instructed the j ury, that if there was an open account between the parties, the delivery of articles within five years was sufficient to take the articles previously delivered out of the statute. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs.
What the Court meant by an open account is very uncertain. If they intended mutual accounts, it would have been correct to leave the circumstance of articles delivered within five years to the jury, as evidence of such an acknowledgment of the prior…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Littler v. SmileyIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
- Perrill v. NicholsIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- Thomson v. HopperSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841