Hickok v. Hickok
New York Supreme Court
The defendant was intrusted by the plaintiff with a note against a third person, to collect for the plaintiff. He received the money, in 1828, and on being called on for the money, in 1850, he denied having received it. This action being commenced in 1850, he relied on the statute of limitations as a bar. The plaintiff was nonsuited, at the trial, on that defense, and he appealed to this court.,
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Shankland, J.
The case of Lillie v. Hoyt, (5 Hill, 395,) establishes the doctrine that the duty of an agent, to receive money and pay it over, is broken if he does not pay it over in a reasonable time; and that an action will lie against him without a demand. The case of a foreign factor, and perhaps that of an attorney at law, are the only exceptions the case recognizes.
The defendant was not an attorney at law, and is not within the reason of the rule which exempts them from an action, without a previous demand. The statute of limitations was a valid defense to this action.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stafford v. RichardsonNew York Supreme Court · 1836
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wood v. . YoungNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Laidley v. SmithWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1889
- In re the Estate of BrownNew York Surrogate's Court · 1912
- Baker v. MooreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Bispham v. PriceSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.