Motions, circa 23 May 1844 [Dana v. Brink]

  • Source Note
  • Historical Introduction
Page [1]
image
)
vs) Assumpsit)
)
Circuit Court
May Term A D 1844
(1) The said comes and moves the Court for a new trial in this cause <​because the verdict is contrary to law and evidences in this​> for the following reasons, that the action should have been brought in the name of the and whereas it is brought in the name of the only for it appears <​that​> <​it appears​> by the papers and the evidence in the case that all the damage proved was for personal injury to the and not evidence of any injury to the for which he could sue seperately
<​(2) And also movves the court to set aside the verdict herein and enter a nonsuit because from <​all​> the evidence [illegible] [herein?] cannot maintan their action in its point for [illegible] [Minshall?]​>
Arest of Judgment—
The said also moves this court to arrest the judgment in this cause for the following reasons
1— Be— This Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action
2. Because the action is misconceived in being brought in ex Contractu when it should be ex delicto
3. Because the action should have been brought in the name of the and whereas it is brought in the name of the only for <​as​> appears by the papers and evidence in the cause all the damage proved was fr[o]m personal injury to the and not evidence of any injury to the for which he could sue seperately
Marr <​& Minshall​>
Atty for [p. [1]]
)
vs) Assumpsit)
)
Circuit Court
May Term A D 1844
(1) The said comes and moves the Court for a new trial in this cause because the verdict is contrary to law and evidences in this that it appears by the papers and the evidence in the case that the damage proved was for personal injury to the and not evidence of any injury to the for which he could sue seperately
(2) And also movves the court to set aside the verdict herein and enter a nonsuit because from all the evidence [herein] cannot maintan their action in its point for [Minshall]
Arest of Judgment—
The said also moves this court to arrest the judgment in this cause for the following reasons
1— Be— This Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action
2. Because the action is misconceived in being brought in ex Contractu when it should be ex delicto
3. Because the action should have been brought in the name of the and whereas it is brought in the name of the only as appears by the papers and evidence in the cause the damage proved was from personal injury to the and not evidence of any injury to the for which he could sue seperately
Marr & Minshall
Atty for [p. [1]]
Page [1]