Church v. Clark

1 Root 303
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided August 15, 1791·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The judgment of the County Court affirmed — ETot because the statute is any bar to this action; for every officer, who has collected money on an execution is liable to pay it over. But the demurrer runs back to the declaration; and by that it appears, that this money was collected and received as an officer, who- is not bound to carry it to- the creditor. The law provides no pay for his travel; the law therefore does not raise a promise, in such case, to pay until a demand is ma.de, and no special demand is laid in the declaration, and for this fault in the declaration, the judgment was affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Church v. Clark, 1 Root 303 (Colo. 1791).

1 Root 303 (Church v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butler v. Smith
25 P. 381 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1890)