Wallace v. Holmes
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Where assumpsit is brought on a promise to pay money, whenever judgment shall be recovered by the plaintiff in an action then pending against a third person, the declaration is sufficiently specific, if it describe the consideration of the promise to have been a return to that third person of property to a certain amount, which had been attached in that action.
Read the full summary
Where assumpsit is brought on a promise to pay money, whenever judgment shall be recovered by the plaintiff in an action then pending against a third person, the declaration is sufficiently specific, if it describe the consideration of the promise to have been a return to that third person of property to a certain amount, which had been attached in that action. The declaration need not enumerate eaoh article returned ; nor need it contain an express averment that the claim in that action was just, or that the writ issued from a particular court, if it allege, that judgment was afterwards…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
If the present action were trespass, detinue or replevin, the description of the property, which was attached and returned to Robert Holmes, might be too uncertain. Because in trespass it would be difficult to justify under so general an allegation as “ shop-goods and household furniture ;”(1) in detinue, the specific articles, which are usually recovered, could not be identified ;(2) and in re-plevin the sheriff will be unable to “ make deliverance” of the right articles, unless they are particularized.(3)
But in trover a description as general as this has been held to be good after default,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. Van DeuzerNew York Supreme Court · 1813