Staunton v. Smith

Citations

• 22 Del. 193
• 6 Penne. 193
• 65 A. 593
• 1906 Del. LEXIS 43

Syllabus

<p>Replevin—Contract—Conditional Sale-—Note of Different Date— Another Note Subsequently Given—Payment or Renewal of Original Note—Conflicting Testimony.</p> <p>1. A certain instrument in writing made by the plaintiff and defendant held to be a conditional sale of the property therein mentioned.</p> <p>2. It is of no consequence when, or for what purpose, the note was originally made, if both parties agree that it is the note referred to in the agreement. The jury should treat it precisely as if it bore even date with, and was made at the same time as the agreement, and for the sole purpose stated therein.</p> <p>3. It is for the jury to say, under the evidence, whether another note given by the defendant to the plaintiff was given and accepted in payment or renewal of the note originally given.</p> <p>4. Where the testimony is conflicting the jury should reconcile it if possible, but if this cannot be done, they should accept that part of it which they deem worthy of credit, and reject that which they deem unworthy of credit, having due regard to the intelligence or ignorance and impartiality or bias of the witnesses, and their opportunity to know the facts to which they testify.</p>