Jordan v. Meredith
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Motion for a. new trial. The cause was tried during the present term. Indebitatus assumpsit was brought for plaister-ing two large houses in the city; and on the trial, it appeared that the parties had agreed, on the 27th February 1797, at the rate of 2s. per square yard, the workmen to find the materials ; the usual price at that time being is. per square yard if the owner of the house furnished the lime, sand, hair, &c.
Read the full summary
Motion for a. new trial. The cause was tried during the present term. Indebitatus assumpsit was brought for plaister-ing two large houses in the city; and on the trial, it appeared that the parties had agreed, on the 27th February 1797, at the rate of 2s. per square yard, the workmen to find the materials ; the usual price at that time being is. per square yard if the owner of the house furnished the lime, sand, hair, &c. The plaintiffs claimed the balance of 412I. 9s. 6d. or 434I. 8s. 6d. Some dispute arose about .the price of a quantity of hair delivered by the defendant; but the chief…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The pretended usage of the plaisterers in the present instance is unreasonable and bad in itself. To charge an employer with materials never received is the height of injustice. But we have no proof that the jury have committed this error, and we are not justified in setting aside a ver°dict on mere conjecture. To warrant our interposition,- we must be clearly satisfied, that injustice has been done, or some plain mistake committed.
The defendant should have challenged the juror before he was sworn. He has slipped his time, by postponing his objection till this period. If he has…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Walls v. . BaileyNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Coxe v. HeisleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1852
- Wadley v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1872
- Sturgis v. CaryU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1855