Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia (Volume 44) (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916. Excerpt: ... Evidence; Contracts; Breach Op Promise Op Marriage; Trial. 1. When a written contract is entered into, all previous negotiations be tween the parties, and verbal statements made by them, are merged in the written instrument. (Following Magruder v. Belt, 7 App. D. C. 303.) 2. Where a special contract remains executory, the plaintiff must sue upon it. (Following Magruder v. Belt, supra, and Broun v. Commercial F. Ins. Co. 21 App. D. C. 335.) 3. Where the declaration in an action for breach of promise of marriage contained two counts, the first in assumpsit for breach of a verbal promise of marriage, and the second in covenant for breach of a written contract of marriage under seal, executed by both parties; and on the trial, at the close of the plaintiff's case in chief, the defendant moved for the direction of a verdict in his favor on the second count; whereupon the plaintiff abandoned that count, and elected to stand on the first count; and at the close of all of the evidence the defendant moved to direct a verdict in his favor on the ground that there could be no recovery on the first count, as the evidence showed an unexecuted written contract between the parties, --it was held, in finding that the lower court erred in overruling the last motion and submitting the case to the jury, that the defendant was not estopped, by any alleged inconsistency in the positions assumed by him on the trial, to raise the question of error in refusing his motion to direct a verdict, nor by his offering special and inconsistent prayers for instruction when his motion was overruled. No. 2861. Submitted December 11, 1915. Decided January 3, 1916. Hearino on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on verdict in an action to...

R775

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles7750
Mobicred@R73pm x 12* Mobicred Info
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916. Excerpt: ... Evidence; Contracts; Breach Op Promise Op Marriage; Trial. 1. When a written contract is entered into, all previous negotiations be tween the parties, and verbal statements made by them, are merged in the written instrument. (Following Magruder v. Belt, 7 App. D. C. 303.) 2. Where a special contract remains executory, the plaintiff must sue upon it. (Following Magruder v. Belt, supra, and Broun v. Commercial F. Ins. Co. 21 App. D. C. 335.) 3. Where the declaration in an action for breach of promise of marriage contained two counts, the first in assumpsit for breach of a verbal promise of marriage, and the second in covenant for breach of a written contract of marriage under seal, executed by both parties; and on the trial, at the close of the plaintiff's case in chief, the defendant moved for the direction of a verdict in his favor on the second count; whereupon the plaintiff abandoned that count, and elected to stand on the first count; and at the close of all of the evidence the defendant moved to direct a verdict in his favor on the ground that there could be no recovery on the first count, as the evidence showed an unexecuted written contract between the parties, --it was held, in finding that the lower court erred in overruling the last motion and submitting the case to the jury, that the defendant was not estopped, by any alleged inconsistency in the positions assumed by him on the trial, to raise the question of error in refusing his motion to direct a verdict, nor by his offering special and inconsistent prayers for instruction when his motion was overruled. No. 2861. Submitted December 11, 1915. Decided January 3, 1916. Hearino on an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on verdict in an action to...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

General Books LLC

Country of origin

United States

Release date

February 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

February 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 12mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

230

ISBN-13

978-1-154-32618-5

Barcode

9781154326185

Categories

LSN

1-154-32618-7



Trending On Loot