Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Andrews Carter, for Plaintiff in Error.
Giles F. Lewis, for Defendants in Error.
Filed: Jan. 28, 1930
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The defendants in error, whom we will hereafter refer to as the plaintiffs, sued the plaintiff in error, whom we will hereafter refer to as the defendant, in an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained the three money counts, namely for money lent, money paid, and money received and also a special count purporting to set up an express contract for the purchase of real estate. To the declaration was attached the following, as Exhibit "A": "Howell et al. vs. Peterson. *Page 181 STATEMENT OF
Summary: The defendants in error, whom we will hereafter refer to as the plaintiffs, sued the plaintiff in error, whom we will hereafter refer to as the defendant, in an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained the three money counts, namely for money lent, money paid, and money received and also a special count purporting to set up an express contract for the purchase of real estate. To the declaration was attached the following, as Exhibit "A": "Howell et al. vs. Peterson. *Page 181 STATEMENT OF A..
More
The record in this cause having been considered by the Court and the foregoing opinion prepared under Chapter 14553, Acts of 1929, adopted by the Court as its opinion, it is considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that if defendants in error will remit the sum of $272.79 within thirty days of the filing of the mandate in the circuit court, the judgment will stand affirmed for the remainder as of the date of the judgment; otherwise, it will be reversed for a new trial.
TERRELL, C. J., AND WHITFIELD, ELLIS, STRUM, BROWN AND BUFORD, J. J., concur.
