Holly v. Rathbone
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Rath* bone sued Holly before a justice, and in his declaration stated, that Holly was one of the overseers of the poor Camden, and, as such, has received certain moneys of Elizabeth Potter, a pauper of that town, and expected to receive more moneys which belonged to the pauper, and ~ ° . r r ' that in consideration thereof, he promised to pay to the . , . . - plaintiff a certain debt due from Elizabeth Potter to the plaintiff;…
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Rath* bone sued Holly before a justice, and in his declaration stated, that Holly was one of the overseers of the poor Camden, and, as such, has received certain moneys of Elizabeth Potter, a pauper of that town, and expected to receive more moneys which belonged to the pauper, and ~ ° . r r ' that in consideration thereof, he promised to pay to the . , . . - plaintiff a certain debt due from Elizabeth Potter to the plaintiff; and that Holly did, in fact, receive moneys of the pauper sufficient in amount to pay the debt of the PIamlnTl The…
1Per curiam
As it appeared from the proof that ‘r „ , Holly was not only the overseer of the poor, but that he actually had the management and control of the property of the pauper, and as a trustee, with the fund in hand, made a promise, the case comes within the doctrine in Beecker v. Beecker. (7 Johns. Rep. 99.)
The promise is to be taken to have been an express promise in writing, as the plaintiff in error has not called for any fact from the justice, to. rebut that presumption. This was said, in Beecker v. Beecker, to be the acknowledged rale. The promise was one which Holly ought, in duty, as…
2Cited by4 opinions
- In re Weber Furniture Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan · 1876
- Warren v. BatchelderSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1844
- Orange County Trust Co. v. MillerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
- Robbins v. WoolcottNew York Supreme Court · 1867