Dunning v. Humphrey

24 Wend. 30
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1840·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Nelson, Ch. J.

The plea is bad, as the action is brought for the recovery of unliquidated damages. Besides the costs of defending the attachment suit, the plaintiff here is entitled to such damages as a jury may think he has sustained by the wrongful seizing and detaining [ *32 ] of his property. If it was taken out of his pessession, he may *be entitled to the value of it; if seized and left in hia possession, to such damages as may be awarded for the unlawful intermeddling with the property.

Judgment for plaintiff.

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

Dunning v. Humphrey, 24 Wend. 30 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1840).

24 Wend. 30 (Dunning v. Humphrey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harris v. Finberg
46 Tex. 79 (Texas Supreme Court, 1876)
Reynolds v. Hosmer
45 Cal. 616 (California Supreme Court, 1873)