Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Leib v. Bolton, 1784 — 1 U.S. 82 · caselaw · US
General
Leib v. Bolton
1 U.S. 821 Dall. 82·Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas·1784·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
*Leib v. Bolton.
Practice.
The court will not set aside the return of a jury of inquiry, unless it appear that there was no proper evidence before them.
A Motion was made, the 10th of November, on me part of the defendant, to set aside the return of the jury of inquiry, on affidavit of irregular proceedings ; and the court granted a rule to show cause, &c.
And now, two of the jurors attended and deposed, that Leib’s book, supported by his own oath, had been admitted as evidence of the delivery of a quantity of leather by Leib, to the order of Bolton, in part discharge of an agreement between them. But being asked, whether they founded their inquest in any degree upon that evidence, they said it was founded upon that, and concurrent testimony.
In support of the motion, it was contended, that, though the admission of books,' in' the manner above stated, had been customary ; yet that the custom ought not to oe carnea further than to prove work done, or wares delivered ; that the purpose for which they had been introduced, on the present occasion, arose upon a collaterial point, to establish a set-oif in diminution of the damages, and that it was, therefore, irregular to admit them. With respect to the concurrent testimony mentioned by the jurors, it was said, that as neither the nature, nor effect of it, appeared to the court, it might have been even more improper than the allowance of the books as evidence ; but that, in all events, the inquest ought to be set aside, as what did appear, shows it to have been raised so far upon an erroneous foundation. But—
[MAJORITY — By the Court.]
By the Court.
We will not set aside the verdicts of juries of inquiry, nor the reports of referees, upon frivolous grounds. Nor will we examine into the effect of any particular piece of evidence upon the minds of the jury ; for, unless it appears, that there was no projier evidence before them, we must presume that they had sufficient grounds for their inquest.
Rule discharged.
Sergeant, for the plaintiff. Lewis and Levy, for the defendant. See Cases temp. Hard. 381.