Woodman v. Jones
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was an action on the case, against the defendants as executors of Joseph Akerman. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff, having an execution against one Frederick Cogswell, delivered the same to the said Joseph Akerman, a deputy sheriff, to be executed and returned ; and that Akerman neglected to return the execution.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case, against the defendants as executors of Joseph Akerman. The declaration alleged that the plaintiff, having an execution against one Frederick Cogswell, delivered the same to the said Joseph Akerman, a deputy sheriff, to be executed and returned ; and that Akerman neglected to return the execution. The cause was tried upon the general issue, at October term, 1836, when it appeared in evidence that Jeremiah H. Woodman, having a demand against Cogswell, brought an action upon it in the name of this plaintiff; and having obtained a judgment in that suit, he, on the…
1Opinion of the CourtRichaRdsox, C. J.
It is insisted, that this plaintiff cannot maintain his suit, because he had no interest in the execution which Akerman neglected to return, and therefore can have sustained no injury by that neglect.
But it is wholly immaterial whether this plaintiff was the real, or merely a nominal plaintiff, in the suit against Cogswell. If he was the real plaintiff, he is entitled to maintain this suit for his own benefit; if he was only a nominal plaintiff, this suit may now be maintained in his name, as the trustee of the person to whom the debt due from Cogswell belonged. It would have been no defence…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harrington v. WardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1812
- Munn v. BaldwinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Inhabitants of Groton v. Inhabitants of LancasterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rogers v. HackettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1850