About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Frederic D. Conrad, Plaintiff in error, v. David Griffey U.S. 480 (1851)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0256 and id is 1 raw text is: 480 SUPREME COURT. Conrad v. Griffey. defendant, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action, which instruction the court refused to give. The ruling of the court, as set forth in this exception, though not reconcilable with their own decision on the first prayer pre- sented to them by the defendant, is in accordance with the opin- ion we have expressed in reference to the questions raised by that prayer, and also with the doctrine ruled by this and in other tribunals upon those questions, as in treating of that first prayer we have already shown. It places the parties upon the true ground of contestation between them, viz. the truth, the extent, and manner of performance on the one hand; the de- gree of injury, from omission, neglect, or imperfection of per- fornance on the other. The ruling of the Circuit Court, there- fore, upon this exception, is entirely approved; but as that court has erred in its decision in reference to the prayers in the first, fourth, and fifth exceptions of the defendant, its decision as to those prayers is hereby reversed, with costs, and this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court, with orders for a venire facias for a new trial in conformity with the principles expressed in this opinion. Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the rec- ord from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, holden in and for the County of Washington, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judg- ment of the said Circuit Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with costs, and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Circuit Court, with di- rections to award a venirefacias de novo. FREDERIc D. CONRAD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. DAVID GRIFFEY. Where a witness was examined for the plaintiff, fnd the defendant offered in evi- dence declarations which he had made of a contradictory character, and then the plaintiff offered to give in evidence others, affirmatory of the first, these last affirmatory declarations were not admissible, being made at a time posterior to that at which he made the contradictory declarations given in evidence by the defendant. Where the writ, pleadings, and contract spoke only of Frederic D. Conrad, and tie judgment went against Daniel Frederic Conrad, the defendant, it was too late after verdict and jadgment to assign the variation ar error. Tais case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for Louisiana.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most