Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
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
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

BOURS v. WEBSTER et al.

         1. The instructions given by the Court for the defendant in this case are clearly right. (See 2 Kent's Com. pp. 495-6.)

         2. If justice has been done, and another trial must result in the same way, a new trial will not be granted, even if there be a mistake in the directions of the judge. (2 Term R. p. 4; 5 Howard Mississippi R. 502.)

         3. If there is enough of legal testimony to uphold the verdict, it will not be disturbed. (1 Smedes & Mar. R. 29; 7 How. Miss. R. 328; 5 Smedes & Mar. R. 226-232.)

         JUDGES: The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray. Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

         OPINION

          MURRAY, Judge

         Crops growing upon land are not goods and chattels, within the meaning of the Statute of Frauds, and will pass by deed or conveyance, from the very necessity of the case, as they are not susceptible of manual delivery until harvested and reduced to actual possession.

         The instructions given by the Court below, at the request of the defendants, as we think, are repugnant and contradictory to those before given, at the instance of the plaintiff, and were calculated to mislead the jury.

         Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Bours v. Webster
(Oct 1, 1856)