Case ID: hill_7/html/0503-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Senators Barlow, Lott and Wright", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Young vs. Rummell.
    Where the declaration in a justice’s court was “ for moneys due on contract, (lost by fire,) damages for the non-performance of contract," &c., and the defendant, instead of calling for a more full statement of the cause of action, pleaded the general issue; held, that the plaintiff might give in evidence a written contract between him and the defendant for the conveyance of lands, and recover the money due thereon.
    Though a suit be tried on its merits before a justice and "submitted for his decision, yet, if he omit to render judgment therein, the proceeding will form no bar to a second action for the same cause.
    On error from the supreme court. For a report of the case in that court, together with the opinion there delivered, see 5 Hill, 60 el seq. It was argued here by
    
      E. Cook Sf D. Tillinghast, for the plaintiff in error, and
    
      J G. Masten, for the defendant in error.
   Senators Barlow, Lott and Wright

delivered opinions concurring in the view taken of the case by the supreme court. And

On the question being put, “Shall this judgment be reversed ?” all the members of the court present who heard the argument, twenty in number, voted for affirming, except Senator Putnam, who voted to reverse.

Judgment affirmed.