Benites v. Hampton
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from the third district. The opinion states the facts. No brief on file. The variance between the allegations and the proofs in this cause was necessarily fatal: 1 Greenl. Ev., secs. 63, 66, and note; Addington v. Magan, 2 Eng. L. & Eq. 827. The items of the account, as well as any and all claims, for “ goods, wares, and merchandise,” became merged in the account stated : 2 Greenl. Ev., see. 127; 13 Cal. 427; 4 Wis. 220; 33 Cal. 694; 1 Utah, 317..
1Opinion of the Court
Twiss, J.:
The complaint alleges that the defendants, between the thirtieth day of June, 1875, and the thirty-first day of August, 1876, were partners, doing business under the firm name of Bieknell, Morrisson & Co. “That on the thirty-*371first day of August, 1876, tbe said defendants, as partners, were indebted to plaintiff on a balance of account for goods, wares, and merchandise, before that time sold and delivered, in the sum of one thousand six hundred and sixty-three dollars and seventy cents; that being so indebted, as aforesaid, there was an account stated by and between plaintiff and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Lockwood v. . ThorneNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Wiggins v. BurkhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Lockwood v. . ThorneNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Terry v. SicklesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by5 opinions
- Daytona Bridge Co. v. BondSupreme Court of Florida · 1904
- Chittenden & Eastman Co. v. Leader Furniture Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1921
- Scoville v. Kellogg Sales Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1953
- Piper v. SalemArizona Supreme Court · 1936
- Scoville v. Kellogg Sales Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1953