Dey v. Murray
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, at the New-York sittings, in December, 1810. e The plaintiff read in evidence the following writing: jSíewYork, 10th December, 1807, Anthony Dey having drawn in favour of George W. Murray, four bills of exchange, as the attorney for Richard S. Hacklew, at one hundred and twenty days alter sight, tor one hundred and twelve pounds ten shillings sterling, on Thomas Mullet 8c Co. of London.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, at the New-York sittings, in December, 1810. e The plaintiff read in evidence the following writing: jSíewYork, 10th December, 1807, Anthony Dey having drawn in favour of George W. Murray, four bills of exchange, as the attorney for Richard S. Hacklew, at one hundred and twenty days alter sight, tor one hundred and twelve pounds ten shillings sterling, on Thomas Mullet 8c Co. of London. It is understood and agreed, that if all or either of the said bills should not be accepted or paid, he is not to be responsible…
1Per curiam
The bills of exchange drawn in favour of the defendant being paid by Mullet & Co. on whom they were drawn, and paid too out of moneys transmitted to them by Hackley, the drawer of the bills, the defendant is not bound to refund the money to the plaintiff It cannot be maintained that the money so paid was the plaintiff’s money, merely because Hackley had previously remitted money to Mullet & Co. to pay the plaintiff The specific money had no earmark. The mistake, if any. *174must be rectified between Hackley, the plaintiff, and Mullet & Co. There was no privity between 'the defendant and those…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Appeals of DuringSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1850
- Jackson ex dem. Colden v. MooreNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Bogart v. NevinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1821