Reeder v. Anderson's Administrators
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Assumpsit» From the Circuit Court eor Mason County. When a man loses a piece of property, there is an implied request from him to every body else; to aid him in recovering it; and any one who finds and restores it, may recover of the owner, upon the implied assumpsit, at least an indemnity for his time and expenses-.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Robertson
The only question to be considered in this case, is whether the law will imply a promise by the owner of a runaway slave, to pay a reasonable compensation to a stranger, for a voluntary apprehension and restitution of the fugitive. And, though such friendly offices are frequently those only of good neighborship, which should not be influenced by mercenary motives or expectations—nevertheless* it seems to us that,|£here is an implied request from the owner, to ail other persons to endeavor to secure to him lost property which he is anxious to retrievé; and that, therefore, there should be an…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Sheldon v. . ShermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Sheldon v. Sherman & Van DuzenNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Tuttle v. Irvine Construction Co.'s ReceiverCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
- Ohio Valley Electric Railway Co. v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Preston v. NealeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1858