Horsey's Executors v. Moore
Horsey's Executors v. Moore
Opinion of the Court
This book is not evidence under the Act of Assembly, which says any interest in or concerning them. This is money relating to lands though the action is upon a bond, a written contract. A charge in Isaac Moore’s book of the consideration of the deed would not be evidence to charge bargainor, for it should be in writing whether to charge or to discharge.
Defendant offered in evidence a bond of same date with plaintiff’s and in same words executed by Isaac Horsey.
Read, C. J. It is not evidence yet.
Plaintiffs must conclude, for they have produced the evidence, and defendants have opposed.
(Charge.) This is an action for the penalty of a bond. The condition is a special one, purporting that there had been an agreement to divide the land so purchased. This is the only way the plaintiff could bring his action, and by a statute [4 & 5 Anne, c. 16, §§ 12, 13 (1705) ] only so much shall be given by the jury as was the value of the injury, not exceeding the whole sum of the penalty. Your verdict is to be for the penalty, to be released on payment of the damages ascertained. The defendant’s counsel say they could not plead no land purchased, and properly, for the bond says there was land purchased (reads the bond “has or may buy”). The word “has” implies there was land purchased before the signing the bond, but what can the
Verdict for plaintiff.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.