White v. Demary
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Two cannot fee made jointly liable for a tort, unless they did the injury jointly. Where property is bailed to two, a demand on one alone will not subject the other to an action sounding ex delictu. A-demand at the house of one is insufficient, unless under such circumstances as t® raise a presumption of actual notice to him before the commencement of the action.
Read the full summary
Two cannot fee made jointly liable for a tort, unless they did the injury jointly. Where property is bailed to two, a demand on one alone will not subject the other to an action sounding ex delictu. A-demand at the house of one is insufficient, unless under such circumstances as t® raise a presumption of actual notice to him before the commencement of the action. This was trover for certain articles of personal property, which had been seized by the plaintiff, as a deputy sheriff, and delivered to the defendants, on their giving a receipt engaging to return them on demand. One of the…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
WThen an action sounds in tort, and isa- . gainst more than one person, judgment cannot be had against more than one without, evidence of a joint wrong. A separate wrong by each entitles the sufferer to only a separate action against each. 1 Maule & Selw. 588, Nicoll vs. Glennia.—4 Inst. 317.—2 Phil. Ev. 125.
Here is no pretence of a joint conversion, unless the de - mand on one and his refusal was ipso facto or de jure, a demand and refusal as to both. Had this action been ex con-tractu, a neglect of one would have subjected both. 13 Mass. Rep. 295, Griswold vs. Plumb.
But being ex delictu,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Larned v. AllenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
3Cited by3 opinions
- Nisbet v. PattonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Pattee v. GilmoreSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1846
- Lovejoy v. JonesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1855