Dodge v. Coddington
New York Supreme Court
IN error on certiorari. The defendant in error declared against the plaintiff in error, in the court below, on a certain writing or due bill, as follows : “ Due y. Coddington, 17 dollars and 38 cents, for sheriff’s fees, which I promise to pay, when collected, from the estate of the late John and Cornelius Wynkoop, deceased, &c. “ Newburgh, 2d September, 1799. (Signed) “ Levi Dodge.” The defendant below pleaded non assumpsit, and the statutes of limitation.
Read the full summary
IN error on certiorari. The defendant in error declared against the plaintiff in error, in the court below, on a certain writing or due bill, as follows : “ Due y. Coddington, 17 dollars and 38 cents, for sheriff’s fees, which I promise to pay, when collected, from the estate of the late John and Cornelius Wynkoop, deceased, &c. “ Newburgh, 2d September, 1799. (Signed) “ Levi Dodge.” The defendant below pleaded non assumpsit, and the statutes of limitation. The plaintiff proved the handwriting of the defendant, but produced no evidence that the defendant had collected the money. The justice…
1Per curiam
The act of the legislature authorises the court, to require the justice to return the evidence ; and if, on the return of the evidence, it does not appear sufficient to support the action, the court will "reverse the judgment; and we have often so decided. In the present case, there was a condition precedent, and the proof does not support the declaration.' The judgment below must be reversed»
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Livingston v. CoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1847
- Scott v. HawsmanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1840
- Hounsford v. FisherOhio Supreme Court · 1834