VEALE V. WARNER
85 Eng. Rep. 463, 468 (1670)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was an action for a debt collection.
FACTS: Veale (P) sued Warner (D) to collect a 2,000 debt. P used the required form of
pleading; D was in the custody of the marshal and there were pledges of prosecution (John
Doe and Richard Roe). P alleged that he lent D 2,000, payable on demand. P alleged that he
demanded repayment from D and that D refused to repay the money. D claimed that the writing
containing the obligation was submitted to arbitrators who ruled that D owed P 3,169, and
that he had paid the full amount and that P shouldn't be allowed to bring this action
because he had already discharged the debt. P claimed that he hadn't been paid and should be
allowed to bring the action. D responded that he had a writing in which P had acknowledged
that D had paid him. Each party demurred to the pleadings of the other party.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment