Peterson v. Patrick
| Decision Date | 18 March 1879 |
| Parties | Charles A. Peterson v. George A. Patrick |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Contract on a promissory note dated February 24 1872, for $ 210. Answer, payment. Trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:
The signature of the note was admitted; and it appeared that it had been secured by a mortgage of a piano and other chattels containing a power of sale. The defendant, who was the only witness called, testified that he had made several cash payments to the plaintiff on the note, and that the plaintiff had taken from him the piano on the mortgage, but had not reported to the defendant any sale of the same, or in any way accounted for the proceeds or value thereof; and he testified to the cost of the piano when purchased by him, and stated how much the same had been used, and that the plaintiff had admitted making a sale thereof, and had also admitted that he had disposed of the piano in a barter trade for a specific sum named, greater than the verdict rendered; and that the defendant did not know where the piano was, or who had it.
The judge instructed the jury "that, after ascertaining the amount due on the note, they should ascertain the amount of the cash payments which they might be satisfied upon the evidence had been made, and, if such amount of payments was not sufficient to extinguish the note, they should then ascertain the value of the piano upon the evidence before them, and apply that, if they found that the plaintiff had taken the piano and used it as his own property, to the further extinguishment of the note, and if, by both cash payments and the value of the piano, the note was fully paid they should find for the defendant; but, if otherwise, they should find for the plaintiff for the balance remaining due thereon."
The jury returned a verdict, which, as ordered by the court to be recorded, was as follows:
The defendant moved to set aside this verdict, as irregular, and contrary to the evidence and to the instructions of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...to grant a new trial constitutes reversible error. Wilson v. Whittaker, 5 Phila. (Pa.) 358; Hunt v. Bruner, 6 Phila. (Pa.) 204; Peterson v. Patrick, 126 Mass. 395;Holcombe & Bowden v. Reynolds, 200 Ala. 190, 75 So. 938;Johnson County Sav. Bank v. Richardson & Son, 9 Ga.App. 466, 71 S.E. 757......