History
  • No items yet
midpage
Tufts v. Peleg Seabury
28 Mass. 140
| Mass. | 1831
|
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

At the trial, a good deal of evidence was introduced by each party, on the question whether the goods were sold on a credit. We'are apprehensive that the manner in which the instruction to the jury is represented in the bill of exceptions, is not accurate, as the judge who presided at the trial thinks the cause was correctly submitted to the jury. But taking the bill of exceptions as it stands, a new trial should be granted. The judge is represented to have told the jury, that if they believed Chamberlain, they ought to find for the defendant ; whereas the proper instruction would have been, that they should find for the defendant if, upon the whole evidence, they believed that a credit had been given. The verdict therefore will be set aside, though we are inclined to think that justice has been done.1

New trial granted.

See Curl v. Lowell, 19 Pick. 25; Morton v. Fairbanks, post, 368.

Case Details

Case Name: Tufts v. Peleg Seabury
Court Name: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Published: Apr 1, 1831
Citation: 28 Mass. 140
Court Abbreviation: Mass.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.