Cooke v. Rhine

thought that the admission of the doctrine contended for by the defendant’s counsel, might have a tendency to introduce different and very opposite issues, which might embarrass both courts and juries exceedingly; and accordingly charged the jury to reject the discount.

was of a different opinion, and thought it a very proper matter for the consideration of the jury in this case.

concurred with him; observing, that this was a case of considerable importance ; and although the doctrine might be very extensive in its operations and consequences, he thought it would be at all events beneficial, in preventing a multiplicity of law suits. He had not a doubt remaining on his mind, but that the discount law of the state embraced the case before the court, and was, therefore, clearly for admitting the discount to go to the jury.

The parties then went into the examination of witnesses, and abalance was eventually found forplaintiff, to the amount of 79/. after allowing a sum for the loss of rent occasioned by the delay in not finishing off the house.