Brown & Hotchkiss v. Cook
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Cook brought an action against Brown and Hotchkiss, before the justice, and declared on a receipt given by the defendants to him, for a pair of horses, the property of Jedediah Chapman, which the plaintiff, as constable, had taken on an execution; and which horses had not been delivered to the plaintiff, when demanded, according to the tenor of the receipt, &c.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Cook brought an action against Brown and Hotchkiss, before the justice, and declared on a receipt given by the defendants to him, for a pair of horses, the property of Jedediah Chapman, which the plaintiff, as constable, had taken on an execution; and which horses had not been delivered to the plaintiff, when demanded, according to the tenor of the receipt, &c. The receipt was proved by the plaintiff, and that the defendants, when the summons was served, confessed that they had given the receipt for the horses, but that the execution which the…
1Per curiam
The plaintiff below was bound to have shown a demand of the horses before suit brought. The defendants were naked bailees, and bound, upon demand, to produce the property, at the place specified in the receipt; but until a demand, there was *362no default, There was no precedent debt or duty. The demand was parcel of the contract, and recjuisite to create the duty. There was, likewise, another fatal objection to the right of recovery. The constable having levied the goods upon the execution, within the twenty days, and delivered them over to the defendants, ought to have demanded the horses, and…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Dillenback v. JeromeNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Bacon v. ThorpSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1858
- House v. LowNew York Supreme Court · 1807
- Pringle v. HuseNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Chapman v. FullerNew York Supreme Court · 1849
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.