Case ID: johns_12/html/0298-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Woodin against Hoofut.
    _ Where the device is'"not thejiístice, bi-judgmentmiiad been obtained on a pvomisso* ry note, which alleged was consideration? was fairly subjuryf11 wh0tlie plaintiff^ the *reverseWi'1thet judgment, though, from the evidence' returned, there is some ISta'Va°tb a waferinciuded whích'wa'Tgl-’ ven for fees as a deputy sheriff, than was warranted by law. ■
    IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court,
    
      Hoofut sued Woodin before the justice, and declared upon a, promissory note, dated 2d July, 1811,for 19 dollars, 7 5 cents, with interesl;i Upon t6e trial, the defendant, admitted the making of the note, but alleged it was not for a good consideration. The ° . ° justice, in his return, stated, that a part only of the testimony was taken down-in writing and returned. This evidence appeared to consist principally of admissions made by the parties, which Went to show -that, the note was given for' fees and services renderedby the plaintiff,.as deputy sheriff upon an execution in his hands, jn favour oí: Herriclc, against Woodin. The. cause was stated, and submitted by the justice to the jury, who tried the cause, and a. verdict was found for the plaintiff for the. • • ... ' amount of ihe note arid interest. ■
   Per Curiam.

The whole of the testimony ndt being returned, it'is difficult to. say whether substantial justice has been done or n°h.' There is some reason to believe that there was inclu dec! in the note, a greater sum than the law would warrant. The .note, however, appears to have been given after a settle- ' ’ . ' , , . , . ' ment of the suit, with the. plaintiff’s attorney, and so not opprr to tjie SUSpjcjon .that it was obtained under the pressure of the execution, . And, besides,, there is evidence showing that some extra services were rendered, for which the deputy might fairly have been entitled-to compensation; and the question being proper for the determination of a jury, and it having been fairly submitted to them, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed,