Colvin v. Holbrook
New York Supreme Court
Error to the Onondaga common pleas. The declaration in the court below was in assumpsit, upon the common counts for money paid, money had and received, and upon an account stated. Plea, the general issue.
Read the full summary
Error to the Onondaga common pleas. The declaration in the court below was in assumpsit, upon the common counts for money paid, money had and received, and upon an account stated. Plea, the general issue. On the trial the plaintiff introduced in evidence an exemplified copy of a judgment record in favor of Gyre! H. Brackett, against Oscar B. Brackett, by which it appeared that judgment was rendered in the supreme court on the 21st day of October, 1836, for $2115,72 damages and costs. The plaintiff’s counsel also introduced in evidence an exemplified copy of a Ji.fa., issued upon said judgment…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Gridley, J.
We do not doubt from a comparison of the 45th with the 51st section pf the act concerning “ executions and the duties of officers thereon,” (2 R. S. 370, 371,) that the money paid to the defendant by the redeeming creditor, was paid to the use of the plaintiff as assignee of the purchaser. We regard the omission of the words “ his personal representatives or assigns,” after the word “ purchaser,” in section 45, as accidental and not altering the rights of the parties. If it were paid to the use of the plaintiff, we see no legal objection to the plaintiff’s right to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Denny v. Manhattan Co.New York Supreme Court · 1846
- Draper v. ArnoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
3Cited by1 opinion
- Waterbury v. . WesterveltNew York Court of Appeals · 1854