Administrators of Dumond v. Carpenter
New York Supreme Court
THIS cause came before the court, on a writ of error from the Ulster court of common pleas. , It appeared from the record that Carpenter declared againstthe administrators of Dumond, stating that the intestate on the 1st January, 1784, was indebted to hint in J J ’ 7 the sum of 200 dollars, for that the intestate was at the time sheriff of Ulster, and as such levied and received the amount of an execution against Afames Mf Masters at the suit of the plaintiff, issued out of…
Read the full summary
THIS cause came before the court, on a writ of error from the Ulster court of common pleas. , It appeared from the record that Carpenter declared againstthe administrators of Dumond, stating that the intestate on the 1st January, 1784, was indebted to hint in J J ’ 7 the sum of 200 dollars, for that the intestate was at the time sheriff of Ulster, and as such levied and received the amount of an execution against Afames Mf Masters at the suit of the plaintiff, issued out of the court of corn. mon pleas °f the county of Ulstet, and converted the same to his own use, and being so- indebted,…
1Per curiam
The answer to the first objection is, that the first count in the declaration is good in assumpsit, for the law will, and always does raise an assumpsit from the misapplication of money received to the use of another. The answer to the second objection is,, that if a terns' intervene between the teste and return of a writ of inquiry, it creates no prejudice to the party, and is, at any rate, only a miscontinuance, which is cured by the statute of jeofails. (Sayer, 245.)
The judgment must be affirmed.-
2Cited by11 opinions
- Arnold v. LymanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Root v. King & VerplanckNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Mumford v. WrightColorado Court of Appeals · 1898
- Ferguson v. Dunn's AdministratorIndiana Supreme Court · 1867
- Miller v. PlumbNew York Supreme Court · 1827
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.