Summary

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne Wiggins v. Burkham — Opinion of the Court

But the court refused to give the said instruction, and, on the contrary, then and there instructed the jury:
'That what was reasonable time for a debtor to object to his creditor's account, after its presentation to him, is a matter of fact for the consideration of the jury, and not a matter of law to be decided by the court.'
The defendants excepted to the instructions given, and to the refusal to instruct, as asked by them. This action of the court presents the only subject for our consideration. The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all of the evidence.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Noah Haynes Swayne Noah Haynes Swayne Wiggins v. Burkham — Opinion of the Court

It does not appear, from anything in the record, that the court erred in refusing to given the instruction. The presumption is the other way.
The proposition that what is reasonable time in such cases is a question for the jury, as laid down by the court below, cannot be sustained. Where the facts are clear, it is always a question exclusively for the court. The point was so ruled by this court in Toland v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature