Pinkham & McDonough v. McFarland & Elrod
PINKHAM & McDONOUGH v. McFARLAND & ELROD
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion Of the Court.
Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
The endorsements of the notes sued on are not denied with sufficient certainty by the answer; if they were, the defendants ought to have objected to their introduction in evidence.
*138As no such objection was made, the plaintiffs were warranted in supposing it was waived, and the subsequent motion for nonsuit was a surprise upon them which the Court should have relieved, by admitting further testimony.
The power of opening tip a case after it has been once submitted, rests in the sound discretion of the Court hearing the cause, which we will not as a general rule attempt to revise. In this case, however, the plaintiffs have beejMfc^l by the acts of the defendants, and justice requires that a ne^^HBmould be granted* Ordered accordingly.
Cited by
- ABF Capital Corp. v. Berglass B171700 · 2005-06-28
- Poorman v. D. O. Mills & Co. · 1868-07-01