History
  • No items yet
midpage
Chamberlin v. Spencer
4 Cow. 550
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1825
Check Treatment
Curia.

The plaintiff might have sued for the money in his own name, and is therefore liable for costs. Goldthwayte and wife v. Petrie, (5 T. R. 234-5,) and Jenkins et ux. v. Plombe, (6 Mod. 91, id. 181, 1 Salk. 207, S. C.) are in point. These cases were fully considered and adopted in Ketchum v. Ketchum, (4 Cowen’s Rep. 87.) The only case against them is Eaves v. Mocato, (1 Salk. 314;) but this has never been acted upon; and there is reason to believe, from the mention of it in Jenkins v. Plume, (id. 207,) that it was wrongly reported; being an action on an insimul computassent; and not, as mentioned in the report, for money had and received. The motion must be granted.

Motion granted.

Case Details

Case Name: Chamberlin v. Spencer
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Aug 15, 1825
Citation: 4 Cow. 550
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.