Hutchins v. Gilman
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit. I. For money had and received. 2. Setting forth that the defendant, on the 28th of February, 1820, being indebted to the' plaintiff in the sum of 0418.10, for so much money had and received of one John Rogers, for the plaintiff's use, in consideration thereof promised the plaintiff to keep the money, and pay the same to the plaintiff when thereto specially requested, and averring a special request on the 30th of July, 1835. The defendant pleaded the general issue,…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit. I. For money had and received. 2. Setting forth that the defendant, on the 28th of February, 1820, being indebted to the' plaintiff in the sum of 0418.10, for so much money had and received of one John Rogers, for the plaintiff's use, in consideration thereof promised the plaintiff to keep the money, and pay the same to the plaintiff when thereto specially requested, and averring a special request on the 30th of July, 1835. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with the statute of limitations. Upon the trial it appeared that one Samuel Brooks, of Natchez, died prior to July,…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
It is contended that Newman should have been joined in this action, but the facts do not show any joint interest. The interests were several, and several powers of attorney were executed. Each had a right to demand of Rogers the amount of his several share : and the right of action cannot be made joint by the payment of the whole sum due to both, to the defendant, in one sum, as an amount due to Brooks’ heirs. That in no way changed the plaintiff’s several claim to a joint one.
It is further suggested that the wife of the plaintiff should have been joined. A question might be made, on the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Decker v. R. S. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Ferris v. ParisNew York Supreme Court · 1813
- Butterfield v. HartshornSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834