Pettijohn v. Hudson
This text of 4 Del. 178 (Pettijohn v. Hudson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
sustained the action.. Mr. Pettijohn was not the officer to whom this execution was directed or delivered. He was not accountable on his bond, or in the summary remedy under the act of 1833, for money received undercolor of this execution. If he is not responsible to Hudson, under- the count for money had and received, he is not liable at all, though he actually received the money for the use of Hudson, and to which he was lawfully entitled. He received the money as the agent of Jefferson, and not by any deputation.
It was proved in the case that Pettijohn forwarded to- Jefferson his note for the amount which he had collected on this execution, which Jefferson refused to receive in payment, but retained as an evidence of the debt; and the defendant relied on this as dischargeing him from any liability to Hudson; but the court held otherwise, unless Jefferson had accepted the note in payment to himand this-before suit was brought by Hudson. Pettijohn received this money as the agent for Jefferson; it belonged to Hudson ;• and Hudson liadlas action against him; for money had and received to his use, if he pursued his remedy against the agent before settlement with his. principal. (1 Selw. N. P. 79, n.).
Judgment for plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Del. 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettijohn-v-hudson-delsuperct-1844.