Seaman v. Patten
New York Supreme Court
ON certiorari to the justices’ court iu the city of New York. It appeared from the return, that the action below was brought against the now plaintiff to recover from him, as inspector-general of provisions, twenty-five dollars, for condemning, as unmerchantable, some beef belonging to the present defendant.
Read the full summary
ON certiorari to the justices’ court iu the city of New York. It appeared from the return, that the action below was brought against the now plaintiff to recover from him, as inspector-general of provisions, twenty-five dollars, for condemning, as unmerchantable, some beef belonging to the present defendant. The record stated, that at the trial the now plaintiff moved for a nonsuit, because the barrel containing tbe beef had not been branded with the name of tbe maker, according to the directions of tbe act.(a) Because, also, no malice or corruption was proved. That these reasons were…
1Opinion of the CourtLivingston, J.
In our opinion the judgment rendered on this verdict is erroneous, and must be reversed.
Without denying the general principle (which is too well settled to admit of controversy) that unless the legislature provide for the protection of officers of this discrip* tion, they act at their peril, although their conduct be bona fide,, and according to the best of their judgment, there are, in this case, sufficient.marks of distinction to justify our not adding it to the revolting precedents which are already to be found on this subject. In making use of this term, I do but little more than follow…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Fath v. KoeppelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Stephenson v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Churchill v. FewkesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1883
- Nash v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
- Pierson v. Bank of WashingtonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1828