Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

JOHN WERLE, Appellant, v. DAVID RUMSEY et al., Indi

Per Curiam.

The complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff's case. As the record stood there was testimony from which the jury might believe that the plaintiff consulted the defendants concerning the danger of the defense of usury, that there was a lack of due care in advising only the obtaining of an estoppel certificate and the plaintiff suffered a loss in consequence thereof. Thus a prima facie case was made out raising issues of fact for the jury. The defendants, however, are entitled to present evidence in explanation or denial of this testimony.

The judgments should be reversed and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, LOUGHRAN, FINCH and RIPPEY, JJ., concur.

Judgments reversed, etc.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WERLE v. RUMSEY
(May 24, 1938)