2 N.J.L. 83 | N.J. | 1806
Lead Opinion
— This appears by the record to be an action on the case brought by the plaintiff for fifty dollars, which he had overpaid to the defendant, on certain executions in his hands against him, as a constable.
This money, if due at all, is due on what is called an assumpsit, or contract, implied in law. And these contracts, raised by implication of law upon the equity of the case, as well as all express contracts, whether written or unwritten, not under seal, are called simple contracts, in contradistinction to those that are under seal.
Now, by the act of March 1, 1804,
Rossell, J. — Concurred.
So, in Rev. 643.
Concurrence Opinion
— I concur in reversing the judgment. This is an action on simple contract, brought [*] otherwise that an action of debt, and therefore, against the express letter of the act of Assembly.
Judgment reversed.
Cited in Little v. Gibbs, 1 South. 211; Sayres v. Inhabitants, 3 Halst. 166.