Crary v. Turner
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of debt, for an escape. The cause was tried at the Rensselqer circuit, in 1809, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. • J At the trial, the plaintiffs produced the record of a 1 judgment against one Arnold, and the ca. sa. issued thereon, with the return thereon, by the defendant, of cepi corpus in custodia. • The defendant admitted that Arnold, after he was in custody, and before the commencement of the suit, went beyond the liberties of the gaol; but relied on…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of debt, for an escape. The cause was tried at the Rensselqer circuit, in 1809, before Mr. Justice Van Ness. • J At the trial, the plaintiffs produced the record of a 1 judgment against one Arnold, and the ca. sa. issued thereon, with the return thereon, by the defendant, of cepi corpus in custodia. • The defendant admitted that Arnold, after he was in custody, and before the commencement of the suit, went beyond the liberties of the gaol; but relied on the defence, that one Daniel Wilcox, the agent of the plaintiff, consented to the escape of Arnold, and was authorized to…
1Per curiam
The motion for a new trial is denied. There is no evidence, that Wilcox was authorized to discharge Arnold from the execution, or that the plaintiffs ever ratified that act of Wilcox. The evidence of his agency in the conduct of the suit was loose; and we ought to have clear and decisive evidence of the authority, before we conclude a party by such a high-handed measure, as the discharge of his debt by a third person, without satisfaction. It is a doubtful point, in the books, whether even such an act would be binding upon the plaintiff, if done by the regular attorney on record, to whom the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Snevily v. ReadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1840
- Lathrop v. BriggsNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Lytle v. EtherlyTennessee Supreme Court · 1837
- Lytle v. EtherlyTennessee Supreme Court · 1837
- Lytle v. EtherlyTennessee Supreme Court · 1837