Spencer v. Blaisdell
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. The first count alleged that the defendant, on the 19th March, 1826, in consideration that the plaintiff would deliver to him $70, promised to return the same on demand.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. The first count alleged that the defendant, on the 19th March, 1826, in consideration that the plaintiff would deliver to him $70, promised to return the same on demand. The second count was, for that said Benjamin on the 19th May, 1826, being in the custody of the said Joshua, a deputy of the sheriff, on a charge of forgery, and having in his possession and belonging to him the sum of $70, it was agreed on the part of the defendant that if the plaintiff would deliver him said sum, the defendant would return it in case the plaintiff should be acquitted of said alleged offence. And…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
If this plaintiff must be considered as the mere servant of his father in the sale of the cattle, it is very questionable, whether this action can be supported. 1 Chitty’s Pl. 5; 1 N.H. Rep. 292; 1 H. Bl. 84.
But we are inclined to think that the case shows a sufficient interest in the plaintiff to enable him to maintain the action. Whatever remained after the children were supported until the father should send for them was given to the plaintiff, who had not only the possession of the money, but an interest in it. And it seems to us that the plaintiff is entitled to recover…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Norton v. WillardNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Maine Fire & Marine Insurance v. WeeksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1811
- Denton v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Perry v. CoatesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Bogert v. PerryCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1819
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.