Huntington v. Rumnill
Supreme Court of Connecticut
WRIT of error, Elijah Rumnill brought an action of account to the county court, in August, 1807, against Hezekiah Hunt* declaring that the defendant, being a practising attorney, in February, 1799, received of the plaintiff two notes to collect and account for; one against one Leister, payable to George Merrills, and endorsed by George Todd; the other, dated 30th March, 1787, for 8¿.10s. interest, made payable by Joseph Pease to David Todd, and on the 23d January, 1799,…
Read the full summary
WRIT of error, Elijah Rumnill brought an action of account to the county court, in August, 1807, against Hezekiah Hunt* declaring that the defendant, being a practising attorney, in February, 1799, received of the plaintiff two notes to collect and account for; one against one Leister, payable to George Merrills, and endorsed by George Todd; the other, dated 30th March, 1787, for 8¿.10s. interest, made payable by Joseph Pease to David Todd, and on the 23d January, 1799, endorsed by David . . ' Todd to the plaintiff; and that the defendant had neglect- , . ed t0 account. The defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Cou&t.
An attorney, who receives a note, or other evidence of debt, for collection, is undoubtedly liable for the debt, if it be lost by his negligence. But the loss of the note, or other ordinary evidence of the debt, does not necessarily involve the loss of the debt itself. And in order to charge the attorney with the debt, the inquiry must be, not whether the ordinary evidence of the debt is lost by his negligence, but whether the debt itself is lost.
In this case, it appears, that the debt due to Rumnill, and put into the hands of Huntington for collection, was not only secured by…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Cox v. SullivanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
- Sohn v. BernsteinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1971