Hamilton v. M'Coun
The Superior Court of New York City
Assumpsit for money had and received by the defendant, belonging to the estate of the intestate. It appeared at the trial, that the intestate had held previously to his decease, certain notes of one MTiibben, amounting to 1475 dollars, which he had paid for MTi.’s benefit; but what had become of the notes, at the time of the intestate’s death, did not distinctly appear.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for money had and received by the defendant, belonging to the estate of the intestate. It appeared at the trial, that the intestate had held previously to his decease, certain notes of one MTiibben, amounting to 1475 dollars, which he had paid for MTi.’s benefit; but what had become of the notes, at the time of the intestate’s death, did not distinctly appear. MTiibben had placed in the hands of the defendant, an attorney and counsel of the court, a policy of insurance for collection, and received of him a certificate in the following words :—“ I “ have taken proofs of Mr.…
1Opinion of the CourtOakley, J.
One M‘Kibben, having a policy of insurance, made by the Brooklyn Fire Insurance Company, and a loss having taken place, lodged it in the hands of the defendant, an attorney, for collection. On the 14th of February, 1827, the defendant gave a written certificate that the policy remained in his hands, and on the next day M‘Kibben endorsed, on the certificate, an instrument, by which the defendant was directed to hold the *525policy, subject to the order of Kane. On the 4th of June, 1827, Kane made a written statement of his claim against M'Kibben, which appeared to be, among other things, for the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- White v. ColemanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879