Legal Opinion

Grinnell v. Cook

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1842Published

Error to the Onondaga C. P. On appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace to the C. P. the case was this : Grinnell brought an action on the case against Cook, who was a deputy sheriff, for taking and selling five horses on an execution against William Tyler, without paying the plaintiff’s bill for keeping the horses. The plaintiff was an innkeeper in the village of Orville. Tyler lived in the same village, about forty rods from the plaintiff.

Read the full summary

Error to the Onondaga C. P. On appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace to the C. P. the case was this : Grinnell brought an action on the case against Cook, who was a deputy sheriff, for taking and selling five horses on an execution against William Tyler, without paying the plaintiff’s bill for keeping the horses. The plaintiff was an innkeeper in the village of Orville. Tyler lived in the same village, about forty rods from the plaintiff. Tyler put three of the horses in the plaintiff’s stable, where they remained most of the time, and. were taken care of by the plaintiff from…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Bronson, J.

It is said that Martin proves an express promise to pay for the keeping of the horses. If that were so, it would not aid the plaintiff in this action. This is not assumpsit, but an action on the case where the plaintiff seeks to recover on the ground of a lien. And besides, Martin *488was not the agent of the plaintiff, and what the defendant said to him seems not to have been intended for the plaintiff, but for Sheldon, who had receipted the horses to the constable. The conversation was not communicated to the plaintiff, and he will never be able to make any thing out of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Peet v. McGrawNew York Supreme Court · 1841

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API