Rathbun v. Ingals
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Washington circuit in June, 1828. The plaintiff proved that $45 were passed to the credit of the defendant, on one Fish becoming bound to a creditor of the defendant to that amount, and that Fish thus became bound to satisfy a demand of the plaintiff against him, which had been left with the defendant as an attorney for collection.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Washington circuit in June, 1828. The plaintiff proved that $45 were passed to the credit of the defendant, on one Fish becoming bound to a creditor of the defendant to that amount, and that Fish thus became bound to satisfy a demand of the plaintiff against him, which had been left with the defendant as an attorney for collection. No demand of the money or direction to remit previous to suit brought was shewn, but it was proved that the defendant had said that he would not pay over the money to the plaintiff, because, as he alleged, the plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
The plaintiff was properly nonsuited, on the ground that there was no evidence of a demand of the money having been made upon him, or directions' *321to remit having been given before the commencement of the suit. It was decided in Taylor v. Bates, 5 Cowen, 376, that an attorney was not liable to an action for money collected by him as attorney for another, until demand or directions to remit. The evidence of a waiver of a demand was not sufficient, under the circumstances of the case, to go to the jury; or at all events, to justify them in finding for the plaintiff.
The…
2Cited by20 opinions
- M'Broom v. GovernorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1837
- Mardis' Adr's v. ShacklefordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Union Passenger Railway Co. v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1889
- de la Garza v. BoothTexas Supreme Court · 1866
- Walradt v. MaynardNew York Supreme Court · 1848
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.