| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

John Norris, the plaintiff in this case, was a citizen of New York who sued Edwin B. Crocker and Elisha Egbert for damages resulting from their alleged breach of contract. The dispute arose when Crocker and Egbert purchased goods from Norris on credit with an agreement to pay him within three months. When they failed to do so, Norris brought suit against them in the Supreme Court of New York seeking payment plus interest as well as additional damages for their failure to fulfill the terms of the contract. The court found that there had been a valid contract between all parties involved but ruled that since it had not been written down or signed by either party, it could not be enforced under state law at that time. However, due to evidence presented by both sides showing clear intent on behalf of each party to enter into an agreement which would have been legally binding if properly documented according to state law requirements at the time, Justice McLean delivered his opinion ruling in favor of John Norris awarding him $1125 plus interest and costs incurred during litigation proceedings.
In the case of John Norris v. Edwin B. Crocker and Elisha Egbert, Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had failed to prove his claim against the defendants for money due on an account stated. He noted that there was no evidence presented as to what items were included in the account or how much each item cost, nor did any witness testify as to their knowledge of such facts. Furthermore, Justice McLean found it significant that none of the parties involved had signed a written agreement regarding this transaction and thus concluded that there was insufficient proof for recovery under an action based on an account stated. As such, he felt compelled to dissent from majority opinion finding in favor of Norris because without more evidence establishing all elements necessary for recovery under this cause of action, justice could not be served by allowing him relief from these defendants