Beckley v. Boardman
6 Conn. 372
Opinion
No rule will be made upon the officer in this case. But if he had notice not to pay the money over to Boardman, and has, notwithstanding such notice, made payment, the plaintiff in error may sustain indebitalus assumpsit against him for the money. If he paid it over without notice, the plaintiff in error is without redress as against him.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Beckley v. Boardman, 6 Conn. 372 (Colo. 1827).
6 Conn. 372 (Beckley v. Boardman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Robinette v. Price
8 N.W.2d 800 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1943)
Reilly v. State
175 A. 582 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1934)
Drabant v. Cure
124 A. 340 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1924)