B00A9E84VY Used good or better, we ship best copy available! May have signs of use, may be ex library copy. Book Only. Expedited shipping is 2-6 business days after shipment, standard is 4-14 business days after shipment. Used items do not include access codes, cd's or other accessories, regardless of what is stated in item title. If you need to guarantee that these items are included, please purchase a brand new copy. N° de réf. du libraire
Titre : Reports of the Cases Argued and Determined ...
Éditeur : Ulan Press
Etat du livre : Good
Description du livre General Books LLC. Paperback. État : New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 214 pages. Dimensions: 9.7in. x 7.4in. x 0.5in.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. 1855. Excerpt: . . . INDEX. ABATEMENT. See Pleading. ABANDONMENT. See Charter. Contract. ACTION. 1. Jurisdiction. Counterpart of Writ. In a joint action against several defendants, where they reside in different counties, the court takes jurisdiction for the issuance of counterparts of the writ, by the insti-tution of the suit in the county where one of the real defendants resides. It is this fact which confers the jurisdiction by virtue of the act of 1820, ch. 25. That act being designed to promote the convenience of the parties by bringing them all under the same jurisdiction, admits of no evasion of its spirit and intent, by substituting a merely nom-inal, instead of a real defendant in the original writ. It is imperative in its terms, and only authorizes the issuance of counterparts, when suit has-been instituted against one of the real defendants, in the county of his residence. Yancey vs. Marriott, Frisby t Co. , 28. 1. In forma pauperis. Rights of non-residents. The right to institute and prosecute suits in forma pauperis, in the courts of this State, is not limited by its laws to the citizens of this State, but belongs alike to the citizens of the other States. Lissenbce vs. Holt, 42. S. The criterion on a quantum meruit. Jury. The question In an action on a quantum meruit is not alone the benefit and advantage derived by the defendant from the services of the plaintiff, but how much does the plaintiff deserve or merit for the work done or the services per-formed for the defendant at his request, cither express or implied. It may often happen that the defendant derives no benefit or advantage, yet, this may not be the fault of the plaintiff, and would not be any defense to a claim for meritorious services rendered. It must be left ACTION--Continued. to the jury to det. . . This item ships from La Vergne,TN. Paperback. N° de réf. du libraire 9781235725814