Jones v. Parish
Wisconsin Supreme Court
ERROR to the District Court for Iowa County. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court, and was argued at the July term, 1844, when the chief justice was absent, and the court being unable to agree upon a decision, a re-argument was ordered, and the cause was again argued in 1845, all the judges being present. 1. The defendant Jones was a gratuitous bailee, without reward, and was liable only for gross neglect equivalent to fraud. 1 Bac.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the District Court for Iowa County. The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court, and was argued at the July term, 1844, when the chief justice was absent, and the court being unable to agree upon a decision, a re-argument was ordered, and the cause was again argued in 1845, all the judges being present. 1. The defendant Jones was a gratuitous bailee, without reward, and was liable only for gross neglect equivalent to fraud. 1 Bac. Abr. 559 ; 1 Davis Abr. 704-712 ; 2 Kent, 559 ; 2 Black. Com. 453; 7 Cowen, 278; 11 Wend. 25; Foster r>. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 479 ; Dormer v.…
1Opinion of the CourtMiller, J.
The defendant in error commenced his action by attachment, against the plaintiff in error, in the district court of Iowa county. The declaration is in assumpsit for money had and received, and the parties went to trial on the general issue.
*496It was proven on the trial, that the plaintiff said to the defendant and others, that he had just been at the Bank of Mineral Point, and found it locked up or closed; that he had some money he wished to pay Into bank, but desired to leave Mineral Point that afternoon; that he then took from his pocket a roll of bank bills, and counted out $600, which, after…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wardell v. HughesNew York Supreme Court · 1829
3Cited by3 opinions
- Corcoran v. HarranWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Becker v. KnudsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1893
- Gorton v. BaileyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879