Lienan v. Lincoln
The Superior Court of New York City
The plaintiff brought this action to recover a claim, or demand, which E. Zachrisson had against the defendants, and which had been sold and assigned to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff brought this action to recover a claim, or demand, which E. Zachrisson had against the defendants, and which had been sold and assigned to the plaintiffs. The complaint states that the defendants, £< on the 28th of February, 1852, were justly indebted to Zachrisson in the sum of $7946.36, with interest thereon, for moneys, notes, and effects, before that time had and received, to and for the use of the said Zachrisson, the particulars of which will appear on reference to the annexed account, which is true, and forms part of this complaint.” That being so indebted, they became…
1Opinion of the Court
Bosworth, J,
The complaint is clearly bad. It does not contain “ a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting a cause of action,” The Code requires a complaint to contain them (§ 142), The rules by which the sufficiency of a pleading is to be determined, are those prescribed by the Code (§ 140). A stranger to this transaction can learn nothing of its precise nature or character, from the complaint.
Because a defendant receives notes and effects to a plaintiff’s use, he does not, as a matter of course, become liable to pay him the amount of them. Whether he has incurred such a…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Grannis v. HookerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Finley v. QuirkSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
- Andresen v. Upham Manufacturing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1904
- Metropolitan Trust Co. of New York v. Columbus, S. & H. R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1899
- Betts v. BacheThe Superior Court of New York City · 1862
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.