Jones v. Gilbert
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action by an officer, claiming damages of the defendants, for their refusal to surrender property, which he had taken, by a writ of attachment, in favour of Daniel Crowley, against Elisha Punderson and Amos Baker, and had delivered to the defendants, upon their written receipt, promising to re-deliver the same to him, or some other proper officer, on demand.
Read the full summary
This was an action by an officer, claiming damages of the defendants, for their refusal to surrender property, which he had taken, by a writ of attachment, in favour of Daniel Crowley, against Elisha Punderson and Amos Baker, and had delivered to the defendants, upon their written receipt, promising to re-deliver the same to him, or some other proper officer, on demand. The first count in the declaration stated, that-on the 7th of June, 1837, the defendants, in consideration that the plaintiff bad, at their special instance and request, delivered to them a large quantity of goods, [specifying…
1Opinion of the Court
Sherman J.
Upon the motion in arrest, the defendants take the following exceptions to the declaration.
1. First, that the assignment of the breach of the promise to re-deliver the goods, is too narrow. The stipulation in the receipt was, to deliver them to the plaintiff, or some other proper officer; but the breach assigned is, a refusal to deliver to the plaintiff only. It is insisted, that the defendants may have delivered the goods to some other proper officer, and so kept their engagement, consistently with this allegation.
By a “ proper officer,” is meant one having a right to levy on these…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Adams v. FoxSupreme Court of Vermont · 1845
- Perry v. WilliamsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1876
- Brown v. GleedSupreme Court of Vermont · 1860
- Case, Bishop & Co. v. D. M. Steele & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1885
- Plunkett v. HanschkaSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.