Case ID: la_10/html/0406-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Martin, J.,\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THOMAS vs. CRAWFORD.
    Western Dist.
    
      October, 1836.
    AFPE AL FROM THE COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE FIFTH PRESIDING.
    Where a ease turns on a mere question of fact, and the evidence' does not support the defence, judgment for the plaintiff will be affirmed.
    This suit is instituted on two promissory notes, amounting to four hundred and forty-six dollars, with interest, executed by Margaret Crawford, “ as widow of R. F. Crawford,, deceased, and tutrix of her minor children.” The plaintiff also claimed two small accounts, for money paid on account of the said widow and heirs. He prays judgment for the aggregate sum of four hundred and eighty-nine dollars.
    The defendant admitted the execution of the notes sued on, but pleaded a general denial to the allegations in the petition. She also averred that the notes in question' were given in error, and set up an account between her late husband and the plaintiff, to show that nothing was owing to the latter.
    Testimony was introduced on this issue, from all of which, the district judge concluded the defence was not sustained. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
    
      Thomas, in propria persona.
    
    
      Spaulding and Dunbar, contra.
    
    
      Where a case turns on a mere question of fact, and the evidence does not support the defence, judgment for the plaintiff will he affirmed.
   Martin, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant sued on two promissory notes, resisted the plaintiff’s claim, on an allegation that they were given in error, and through misrepresentation. There was judgment against her, and she appealed.

The case turns on a mere question of fact, and a close examination of the evidence has satisfied us, that the district judge correctly concluded, that the allegation set aip in the defence was not supported.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs.