Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Judicature of the State of Indiana - By Horace E. Carter (Volume 40) (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. 1873. Excerpt: ... Vawter v. Griffin et al. STATUTE OF FRAUDS.--English Statute.--Omission of Words " Warts and Merchandise"--Legal Effect.--In adopting the seventeenth section of the Statute of Frauds of Charles II. as the seventh section of our own act, but omitting after the word "goods" the words "wares and merchandise," the legal effect of the section remained the same, and the construction given to the seventeenth section by the English courts and text writers may properly govern us in placing a meaning to the seventh section of our act. Neither section includes contracts for the sale of shares or stocks, notes, check, bonds, or evidences of value. APPEAL from the Jefferson Common Pleas. Buskirk, J.--This action originated before a justice of the peace, and was based upon a note executed by Joseph Griffin and Garrett Williams, payable to James G. Moore, for one hundred and twelve dollars and sixty-five cents, and by him assigned to the appellant. It was admitted that Williams was the surety of Griffin on the note. Williams made no defence before the justice or in the common pleas. Griffin, in addition to the statutory denial, pleaded a set-off. The cause was tried by the justice, and resulted in a finding for the plaintiff in the sum of seventy-one dollars and sixty cents. The justice of the peace, upon the application of Griffin, granted a new trial. The cause was again tried by the justice, and resulted in a finding arid judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of forty-seven dollars and ninety cents. Griffin appealed to the common pleas, where the cause was tried by a jury, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of twenty-eight dollars and ten cents. The appellant moved the court for a new trial, which motion was overruled by the court, and the appellant ...