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)

Ritchie, Osgood&Co., Respondents, v. Charles M. Davis, Appellant

         JUDGES: Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          MURRAY, Judge

         The Court below erred in setting aside the first report of the referee. The plea of the defendant would have been bad upon demurrer, but as no objection was taken at the time, and the case submitted to the referee, this was not sufficient reason for setting aside the report. If it was, we are at a loss to understand why the Court refused to permit the defendant to amend his plea, when it was evident from the report that the plaintiffs could not recover if the statute was properly pleaded.

         This was not only a gross abuse of discretion, but an absolute denial of law and justice, inconsistent with every rule of right or reason.

         The judgment is reversed, and the Court below directed to enter judgment for the amount, $ 240, with legal interest from the 30th of April, 1853, being the amount first reported by the referee; the plaintiffs to pay all costs that have accrued in this case subsequent to the filing of said report.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Ritchie Osgood & Co. v. Davis
(Oct 1, 1855)