Marshall v. Joy
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money had and received. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury. On trial, the plaintiff gave evidence tending, to prove, that, in 1842, while the bankrupt law of 1841 was in force, he applied to the defendant, who was an attorney at law, in regard to making application for a discharge under that law; that, after some consultation, the plaintiff concluded to, and did, hire the defendant to buy up the demands against him at a discount, for which…
Read the full summary
Indebitatus Assumpsit for money had and received. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury. On trial, the plaintiff gave evidence tending, to prove, that, in 1842, while the bankrupt law of 1841 was in force, he applied to the defendant, who was an attorney at law, in regard to making application for a discharge under that law; that, after some consultation, the plaintiff concluded to, and did, hire the defendant to buy up the demands against him at a discount, for which service he was to pay the defendant '$25,00; and that for this purpose the plaintiff made out a schedule of his…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Hebard, J.
1. Has the defendant money in his hands, which he cannot equitably retain 1 That must depend upon the manner of his obtaining it. If he obtained it by fraud and misrepresentation and circumvention, he cannot retain it. And that he did thus obtain it, as against McLaughlin, there cannot, from the facts detailed in the bill of exceptions, be any doubt.
*5492. Who, then, is entitled to this' money, — amounting to one hundred dollars 1 The plaintiff owed it to McLaughlin, McLaughlin had it secured by attachment upon the plaintiff’s land. This same land…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Elias v. SahmNew York Marine Court · 1878