Canfield v. Merrick
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit on a promise to account. The plaintiff declared as follows: “ That at Bridgeport, from the first day of January, 1831, until the 1st day of July, 1833, the defendant was bailiff to the plaintiff, and as such, received of the plaintiff goods, wares and merchandize of the value of 50 dollars, and a certain horse, the proper estate of the plaintiff, of the value of 75 dollars, to sell the same and account therefor to the plaintiff; and…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit on a promise to account. The plaintiff declared as follows: “ That at Bridgeport, from the first day of January, 1831, until the 1st day of July, 1833, the defendant was bailiff to the plaintiff, and as such, received of the plaintiff goods, wares and merchandize of the value of 50 dollars, and a certain horse, the proper estate of the plaintiff, of the value of 75 dollars, to sell the same and account therefor to the plaintiff; and in consideration thereof, the defendant, afterwards, viz. on the day and year last aforesaid, undertook and faithfully…
1Opinion of the CourtBissell, J.
A number of questions have been raised under this demurrer, which are now to be considered.
1. It is objected, that the declaration contains no averment, *429that the goods were delivered at the defendant's request; and therefore, shows no consideration for his promise.
It is averred in the declaration, that the defendant was the bailiff of the plaintiff, and as such, received his goods to sell, and to account for the same. Does not this allegation, necessarily, and ex vi termini, import, that the goods were delivered at the defendant’s request ? Or does it not, at least, imply a privity of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Brigham v. EvelethMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Osborne v. LawrenceNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Tousey v. PrestonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1814
- Bradley v. DavenportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Collins v. PhelpsConnecticut Superior Court · 1807
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Gledhill v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1932
- Andrews v. ThayerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
- Schenectady Discount Corp. v. MattConnecticut Appellate Court · 1964