Coe v. Stow
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit, for contribution; commenced July 31st, 1827. Arthur W. Mag ill was appointed cashier of the office of discount and deposite of the Bank of the United States at Middletown, and gave bond, with the plaintiff, the defendant and Nathan Starr, as sureties, for the faithful performance of his duty.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, for contribution; commenced July 31st, 1827. Arthur W. Mag ill was appointed cashier of the office of discount and deposite of the Bank of the United States at Middletown, and gave bond, with the plaintiff, the defendant and Nathan Starr, as sureties, for the faithful performance of his duty. For a breach of duty an action was brought on such bond, and a recovery was had against Magill and his sureties, before the circuit court of the United States, for the sum of 40,014 dollars. An execution, issued on this judgment, was in June 1827, levied upon the real…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
Whether the plaintiff, on the facts in this case, had a cause of action, at the date and service of his writ, is the question to be determined.
Payment upon the execution is a fundamental fact, without which contribution cannot be demanded; and this indispensable cause of action could alone exist,by a legal transfer of the plaintiff’s land, before the commencement of his suit.
The transfer of title, by the levy of an execution, is by virtue of the statute; and to render it effectual, the requisitions of the law must be strictly observed. The statute requires, in order to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burton v. PondSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1811
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bigelow v. TopliffSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Morton v. EdwinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Schroeder v. TomlinsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Wade v. KalbfleischNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Honulik v. Town of GreenwichSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.