Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Miss. 21

Ellzey v. Stone

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1845

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1845-01-15

In error from the Pike circuit court. William A. Stone, suing for the use of Charles W. Adams, brought an action of assumpsit against Thomas Ellzey, Noah R. Sparkman, and John Ellzey, upon a promissory note made by them payable to Stone. The plea was non assumpsit. A trial was had and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff below. The defendants made a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, whereupon they embodied the testimony in a bill of exceptions.

Decided 1845-01-15

Mr. Justice Thacheh

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Writ of error to Pike county circuit court.

¶3The plaintiff below instituted his suit upon a promissory note. The defence attempted to be set up was a failure of consideration. It appeared in evidence that the note was given in consideration of legal services to be rendered at the May term, 1841, of the Pike county circuit court, and at that term only. The evidence of one witness showed that the plaintiff below, an attorney at law, contracted with one of the defendants to defend certain suits in which he was party, then pending in that court, a list whereof was made by that defendant and presented to his attorney, and that subsequently the plaintiff below agreed to gratuitously defend him in all other of his suits at that term. The description of the suits contained in the list does not appear in evidence. Another witness testified to a portion of a conversation between the parties respecting a suit pending at the same term against the defendant, in a branch of which the plaintiff below, at a subsequent term, became professionally engaged against the defendant. Upon a careful examination of the evidence, it does not seem to us that the defendant made out his defence. By his own witnesses it appears tha.t a list of the cases to be defended was made out by him, and that their defence constituted the consideration of the note; but it does not appear that the plaintiff below failed to defend either of these *24cases, which could alone affect the contract. ' The various charges of the court below having been based exclusively upon the evidence in defence, no examination of their fitness need be made. This case, moreover, is one which presents a question of fact peculiarly within the province of a jury. But as the evidence shows the facts were fairly left to the consideration of a jury, this court would feel itself unwilling to disturb their verdict, unless a great preponderance of testimony appeared against it. Such is not the case, in our opinion, in this instance,

¶4Judgment affirmed.

/13/miss/21 · .json · Public domain