Sample v. Looney
Tennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity
Case.—The counts in the declaration were indebitatus assumpsit, for 337 1-2 dollars, for a negro girl sold and delivered quantum valebat, and quantum meruit, for another negro girl.
Read the full summary
Case.—The counts in the declaration were indebitatus assumpsit, for 337 1-2 dollars, for a negro girl sold and delivered quantum valebat, and quantum meruit, for another negro girl. Upon examination of the testimony it appeared by the oath of Mr. Robertson, that he was present when the negro girl named Milly, alluded to was sold by his relation Mr. Milton to the plaintiff.—When in treaty respecting the purchase of this girl, Milton's wife, and perhaps others of his family told the plaintiff, that the girl was subject to convulsion fits: they appeared to be attached to her, and used…
1Opinion of the Court
Overton j.
The case of Sintsenick vs. Lucas, in principle certainly does not apply to this. It is true with respect to juidicial proceedings, that the subject of any prior adjudication, cannot be re-examined, unless in due course of law by appeal, or writ of error; but to make the record of a former judicial proceeding a bar and conclusive, it should appear that the particular point in discussion had been formerly examined and decided. If it should not appear that the point had been previously an object of judicial enquiry, and determination, yet consistent with the precedents and books of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bird, Savage, & Bird v. PierpointNew York Supreme Court · 1806
3Cited by4 opinions
- Deberry v. YoungTennessee Supreme Court · 1851
- Thomason v. RiceTennessee Supreme Court · 1855
- Nikas v. United Const. Co.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1950
- Westmoreland v. Dixon & SheltonTennessee Supreme Court · 1817