Collins v. Ragrew
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on a bill of exceptions, to the court of common 1 - t 5 pleas of the county of Ontario. The plaintiff in error, brought an action of debt in the court below, against the defendant in error, and declared generally, for money borrowed by the defendant of the plaintiff, and for money had and received by the defendant to the plaintiff’s use. ' The defendant pleaded nil debet; A 1 and. at the trial, m May term, 1817, m the court below, ' y the plaintiff’s counsel stated…
Read the full summary
IN error, on a bill of exceptions, to the court of common 1 - t 5 pleas of the county of Ontario. The plaintiff in error, brought an action of debt in the court below, against the defendant in error, and declared generally, for money borrowed by the defendant of the plaintiff, and for money had and received by the defendant to the plaintiff’s use. ' The defendant pleaded nil debet; A 1 and. at the trial, m May term, 1817, m the court below, ' y the plaintiff’s counsel stated that the action was founded on the second section of the act, entitled, “ an act to prevent excessive and deceitful…
1Per curiam
This case comes before the court, on a writ of error to the common pleas ®&>Ontario county, founded on a bill of exceptions duly taken. It presents the question, whether, in an action, brought by the losing party, to recover hack money lost at gaming, he is bound to declare specially, or may declare generally, under the statute, for money had and received; and the statute would seem too plain and explicit to admit of any doubt, that he may declare generally. This is expressly authorised by the act, (1 N. R. L. 153.) The case of Cole v. Smith, (4 Johns. Rep. 193.) does not apply. There the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tompkins v. SmithThe Superior Court of New York City · 1882
- Moran v. MorrisseyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1864
- Johnson v. ClarkAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1898