Case ID: scl_14/html/0051-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John M. Lemon ads. John Billings.
    On counts, for money had and retained, a horse said, aad delivered,.fyc. Plaintiff proved that defendant acknowledged be had received and sold a horse ' of plaintiffs, but the value of the horse not being proved; the epurt granted a new trial, the jury having found a verdict for $50.
    
    Tried at Charleston, before Mr. Justice Riehaidson.
    This action was brought on the following account, viz: June 13th, 1815. To amount of Sanders’s note, dated 29th November, given to you for collection as pr.. your receipt of this date, ‡ 70
    One horse returned to you by Senders, by toy ) j5q order, as pr. your receipt,, and not accounted;for,- y
    The declaration consisted of several.coants. Two hundred and twenty dollars had and received,, for a horse-sold and delivered; for negligently keeping á horse; whereby plaintiff became the loser of its value, and refusing to redeliver the same, being requested; and lastly for seventy' dollars, for money bad, and received on account stated.
    Plaintiff produced one witness, Mr. Roacli, who proved that defendant had acknowledged that he had received and sold a horse of plaintiff’s, but witness having never seen the horse was unable to fix any value. There was no proof of a demand or refusal. The judge stated to the jury, that from the evidence, he was at a loss to see how they could find a verdict for the plaintiff. But if so disposed, they ought not to give more than merely enough to covet costs. They found a verdict notwithstanding for $50 and costs of suit.
    A motion was now made fora new trial, because accord-.1 \ ing to the pleadings, the verdict was contrary both to law and evidence,and was, moreover, unreasonable and excessive.
    
      J. B. White, fbr appellants..
    
      DeLieaseline, contra^
   Nott, J.

«This court concur in opinion with the judge who presided in the court below, that there was no evidence to authorize the verdict, which the jury have found, and a Slew trial is, therefore, granted.