Holbrook v. White
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Saratoga Common Pleas. The question presented by the bill of exceptions in this case is, whether an administrator can maintain an action for the penalty given by statute, against an officer who, having made a distress for rent, neglects to file the affidavit of the landlord and the warrant of distress, in the town clerk’s office, within ten days after sale of the property destrained. 2 R. S. 501, § 8, 9. On 13th October, 1832, the plaintiff took out letters of…
Read the full summary
Error from the Saratoga Common Pleas. The question presented by the bill of exceptions in this case is, whether an administrator can maintain an action for the penalty given by statute, against an officer who, having made a distress for rent, neglects to file the affidavit of the landlord and the warrant of distress, in the town clerk’s office, within ten days after sale of the property destrained. 2 R. S. 501, § 8, 9. On 13th October, 1832, the plaintiff took out letters of administration on the estate of Daniel Matthews, deceased. On the 15th December following, the defendant levied upon…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
The only question submitted to the court was whether the plaintiff as an administrator, had a right to recover the penalty given by the revised statutes, 2 R. S. 501, § 8, 9; and the court decided he had not, *592and instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant. In my opinion the court were clearly wrong. The property, at the time of the levy and sale, was the property of the plain- ^; he and no other person was the legal owner. It was unnecessary, and perhaps improper for him to have described himself as administrator. He did not properly sue in his…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Paff v. KinneyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1852
- Walton v. WaltonNew York Court of Appeals · 1863