Thallhimer v. Brinckerhoff
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit for money had and received, tried at the New-York circuit, October 5th, 1824, before Edwards, C.. Judge. 'At the trial an agreement was given in evidence between the plaintiff and one Henry R. Teller, dated April 1 Oth, 1807. This agreement recited a claim to certain lands by Teller, to whom the plaintiff was related ; and provided, that on its recovery, the former would convey to the plaintiff one fourth of it.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for money had and received, tried at the New-York circuit, October 5th, 1824, before Edwards, C.. Judge. 'At the trial an agreement was given in evidence between the plaintiff and one Henry R. Teller, dated April 1 Oth, 1807. This agreement recited a claim to certain lands by Teller, to whom the plaintiff was related ; and provided, that on its recovery, the former would convey to the plaintiff one fourth of it. Teller made the defendant his attorney, for the purpose of recovering the land ; but instead of actually taking possession of it, the claim \vas compromised between Teller…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
Sutherland, J.
The first question which
arises is, whether, under the circumstances of this case, an action for money had and received can be sustained by the plaintiff". His rights all grow out of the agreement between him and Henry R. Teller, of the 10ÍA of April, 1807. That agreement was originally held by this court, ' *94fo be void as against the act, (1 R. L. 172,) to prevent champerty and maintenance. (20 John. 386.) But the court of errors reversed that judgment, and established the validity of the contract. (3 Cowen, 623.) Whether that agreement was void or not, was the only…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Miller v. HackleyNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co. of AlexandriaSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- Thalimer v. BrinkerhoffNew York Supreme Court · 1823
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States v. Universal Rehabilitation Services (Pa), Inc., in No. 97-1412 United States of America v. Attila Horvath, in No. 97-1413 Cross-Appellee in No. 97-1467 Not a Party to the en Banc Proceeding United States of America v. Richard J. Lukesh, in No. 97-1414Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Peck v. . MallamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Beardslee v. HortonMichigan Supreme Court · 1855
- Stecher Lithographic Co. v. . InmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- McRea v. Ins. Bank of ColumbusSupreme Court of Alabama · 1849
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.