Murley v. Ennis
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to Frótate Court, Clear Creek County.* The declaration contained the common counts for goods sold and delivered; for work done and materials furnished; for money loaned; for money received by defendant for use of plaintiff; for interest; for money found to be due upon an account stated. There was no count for money paid to the use of defendant.
Read the full summary
Error to Frótate Court, Clear Creek County.* The declaration contained the common counts for goods sold and delivered; for work done and materials furnished; for money loaned; for money received by defendant for use of plaintiff; for interest; for money found to be due upon an account stated. There was no count for money paid to the use of defendant. At the trial, Ennis, the present defendant in error, who was then plaintiff, gave evidence tending to provean agreement between Murley, the plaintiff in error, one Thompson and himself, by which Murley was to prospect for lodes, and the others…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
We are of opinion that the supposed accounting and promise to pay referred to in the first instruction, which was given, amounted to no more than an admission of liability, and was entitled to only such consideration as the jury might see fit to accord to it in view of the other testimony. If, in truth, Ennis had no interest in the proceeds of the lode in question, then the alleged promise was without consideration and void, but by this instruction the jury are required to give it conclusive effect; the fourth asserts substantially the same proposition. The eighth authorizes the jury to…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Doyle v. BurnsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Meagher v. ReedSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
- Pederson v. LothmanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1958
- Shea v. NilimaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
- Treat v. HilesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1887
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.