Curry v. May ( 1844 )

A majority of the'court refused the nonsuit. Judge Harrington differed on the ground that the contract as alledged was of a purchase of twelve hundred cords of wood, of which two hundred cords more or less, should be seasoned wood; whereas the contract was for one thousand cords of wood, of which about two hundred cords should be seasoned.

Houston, for plaintiffs. Layton and Cullen, for defendants.

The plaintiffs had a verdict.