Ridder v. Whitlock
New York Supreme Court
The complaint in this action was served with the summons. The summons contained a notice, that if the defendant failed to answer the complaint within twenty days, &c., the plaintiffs would take judgment against the defendant for |363.16, with interest thereon from the 30th day of July, 1855, besides costs.
Read the full summary
The complaint in this action was served with the summons. The summons contained a notice, that if the defendant failed to answer the complaint within twenty days, &c., the plaintiffs would take judgment against the defendant for |363.16, with interest thereon from the 30th day of July, 1855, besides costs. The complaint states that the plaintiffs employed the defendant as a pedler, to take goods and merchandise, belonging to the plaintiffs, and sell and dispose of the same for the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs agreeing to pay the defendant a certain sum as a compensation for his services; that…
1Opinion of the Court
Balcom, Justice.
By striking from the complaint the allegation that the defendant converted to his own use the goods, notes and money of the plaintiffs therein described, which he had neglected and refused to account for and pay to the plaintiffs, when by them requested so to do, the entire cause of action set forth might be regarded as arising on contract, and the complaint would conform to the summons, which contains the appropriate notice prescribed by sub. 1 of § 129 of the Code. The form and language of the complaint would then be substantially like declarations in assumpsit under our…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Durfee v. HeemstreetNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sweeney v. SchultesNevada Supreme Court · 1885
- Berry v. BingamanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
- Keeler v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Hartshorn v. NewmanNew York Supreme Court · 1862