M'Neilly v. Richardson
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit, for money had and received to the pldintiff’s use, tried before Woodworth, J. at the New York sittings, the 23d April, 1822, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, for $2794 84, subject to the opinion'of the Court on the following case: The plaintiff, resident in Ireland, sent to the defendant, a resident in the city of New York, a bill of exchange dfawn by Cressy & Dawson, of Lawrence Town, in Ireland, on Abraham Bell, of the city of New York: merchant, in…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, for money had and received to the pldintiff’s use, tried before Woodworth, J. at the New York sittings, the 23d April, 1822, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, for $2794 84, subject to the opinion'of the Court on the following case: The plaintiff, resident in Ireland, sent to the defendant, a resident in the city of New York, a bill of exchange dfawn by Cressy & Dawson, of Lawrence Town, in Ireland, on Abraham Bell, of the city of New York: merchant, in favor of* the defendant, dated the 19th day of March, 1818, for 2210 dollars payable at 60 days sight. The bill was…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
Woodworth, J.
The money was advanced by the plaintiff to be applied in a particular adventure. He never consented to a different appropriation. The defendant has, on his own risk, and on his own responsibility, undertaken a different voyage, and chosen a different cargo. With the profit or loss in this concern, the plaintiff had no connection. This is a sufficient reason for excluding evidence to prove the defendant’s loss. The money not being applied according to the contract, the plaintiff was entitled to a return of it, as money had and received to his use. The defendant must be…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Foote v. FfoulkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Baker v. MooreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Gardner v. LayNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1867
- Rogers v. BradfordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1844