Peay v. Ringo
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Error to Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. John J. Clendenin* Circuit -Judge. Due diligence constitutes the measure of an attorney’s engagements. 6 Eng. 212; 13 Ark. 193. Where a note is received for a particular purpose as so much money, it will be considered as money, and if lost, or misapplied, or not applied, an action for money had and received will lie. 16 Ark. 237; Com. on-Con. 324; 7 Cowen 661; 13 East 20; 2 Wash.
Read the full summary
Error to Pulaski Circuit Court. Hon. John J. Clendenin* Circuit -Judge. Due diligence constitutes the measure of an attorney’s engagements. 6 Eng. 212; 13 Ark. 193. Where a note is received for a particular purpose as so much money, it will be considered as money, and if lost, or misapplied, or not applied, an action for money had and received will lie. 16 Ark. 237; Com. on-Con. 324; 7 Cowen 661; 13 East 20; 2 Wash. C. C. R. 172; 4 lb. 253; 4 Hill 442. Peay need not have done more than prove receipt and Notrebe’s solvency. 2 Phil. Ev. part 1st. note 387, page 200. In an action for money had…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Compton
The plaintiff in error brought assumpsit against Ringo as surviving partner of Ringo & Trapnall — the declaration containing the money counts only. To reverse the judgment of the court below — which was for the defendant' — the plaintiff brings the case before this court on wi’it of error.
At the trial the plaintiff read in evidence a receipt in the words and figures following:
“We have received of James Lawson, Frederick Notrebe’s “ note, due twelve months after 1st day of April, 1848, for one “ thousand dollars, which is to be appropriated towards the “ payment of two judgments in Pulaski…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Beardsley v. RootNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Hatten v. RobinsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1838
- Witherup v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1822
3Cited by2 opinions
- Arkansas National Bank v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Snapp v. StanwoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1898