J. C. Merrill & Co. v. Jaeger
Hawaii Supreme Court
Exceptions prom Rulings op Austin, J. The Court is not required to put propositions to the Jury, although correct, in the very language used by counsel, nor to give again, in the terms proposed by counsel, what has already been given.
Read the full summary
Exceptions prom Rulings op Austin, J. The Court is not required to put propositions to the Jury, although correct, in the very language used by counsel, nor to give again, in the terms proposed by counsel, what has already been given. The jury having found that certain goods shipped by plaintiffs to defendant were to be considered a consignment and not a sale; held that the verdict was not without evidence to support it, nor contrary to clearly preponderating testimony, and must stand.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion op the Court, by
McCully, J.
This case was tried at the last January Term, when a verdict was rendered for the plaintiffs for $791 83 With interest. The verdict was set aside and a new trial had in the April Term, when verdict was given for the defendant. The plaintiffs now bring exceptions and ask for a new trial.
The case may be given by quoting the statement of the Chief Justice, in rendering his decision granting a new trial, as follows : “This is an action to recover $872 45, stated in the bill of particulars, as follows: ‘For 200 bales of hay shipped from San Francisco to Honolulu,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morehouse v. . YeagerNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bright v. QuinnHawaii Supreme Court · 1911
- Kometani v. HeathHawaii Supreme Court · 1967
- Ditto v. McCurdyHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1997
- Martini E Ricci Lamino S.P.A.-Consortile Societa Agricola v. Trinity Fruit Sales Co.District Court, E.D. California · 2014
- Martini E Ricci Iamino S.P.A.—Consortile Societa Agricola v. Western Fresh Marketing Services, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.