Favor v. Philbrick
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was a writ of error to the court of common pleas. It appeared that the plaintiff in error, brought ⅝11 action against Philbrick, and alleged in her declaration, “ that the said Philbrick, at W. on the 3d February, 1823, in consideration that the plaintiff then and there delivered to the said Philbrick, at his special request, an account which was then lawfully due in favor of the plaintiff, against one Charles Greenfield, of the value of $7,50, to be carried and…
Read the full summary
This was a writ of error to the court of common pleas. It appeared that the plaintiff in error, brought ⅝11 action against Philbrick, and alleged in her declaration, “ that the said Philbrick, at W. on the 3d February, 1823, in consideration that the plaintiff then and there delivered to the said Philbrick, at his special request, an account which was then lawfully due in favor of the plaintiff, against one Charles Greenfield, of the value of $7,50, to be carried and conveyed by the said Philbrick., from said Windsor to Henniker, to be safely delivered to A. Rogers, and had then and there…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court.
It is objected, in this case, that a writ of •error docs not lie. We are aware that it has been decided in New-York, that a writ of error will not lie where judgment has been arrested, 19 Johns. 247, Horne v. Barney ; 2 Johns. Cases, 215, Fish v. Weatherwax.
The reason assigned in New-York, is, that there is no judgment to be affirmed or reversed. But this is a mistake. When judgment is arrested, there is a judgment, that the plaintiff take nothing by his writ. 2 Mass. Rep. 142 ; Rastal’s Entries, 106, a. And when .such a judgment is entered, where there ought to be judgment on, *361th…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Inhabitants of Pembroke v. Inhabitants of AbingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1806
- Horne v. BarneyNew York Supreme Court · 1821