Legal Opinion

Carey v. Prentice

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided September 15, 1784PublishedCited by 5 opinions

ActioN of indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received for the plaintiff’s use. Plea nonassumpsit. Issue to the jury.

1Opinion of the Court

The case was — 'In December A,. I). 1780 the defendant was commandant of the fort at New Loudon; and the plaintiff was going out with his vessel, loaded with oats; having the governor’s permit to transport them to Newport, but had not given bond agreeable to tlie statute; the defendant seized the vessel and cargo; upon which the plaintiff gave the defendant £145, to let him pass; which the defendant received and permitted the plaintiff to pass without giving bonds. Yerdict and judgment was, for the plaintiff to recover, being money *92paid 115011 an illegal consideration, and which, the…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cobb v. CharterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1865
  2. Preston v. BaconSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
  3. Standish v. Jackson (In re Albertson)District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2015
  4. Cole v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1850
  5. Davidson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API