Seldon v. Hickock

New York Supreme Court

Seldon v. Hickock

2 Cai. Cas. 166

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1804

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 2 Cai. Cas. 166 (Seldon v. Hickock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seldon v. Hickock, 2 Cai. Cas. 166 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1804).

Pincite

Opinion

Spencer, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant, with two others, (Lord and Sherman,) who were copartners, were tenants in common of the salt. One tenant in common cannot maintain trover- against his co-tenant, unless the thing holden in common be destroyed. In case of a sale by one, and a receipt of tbe money, an action for money bad and received will lie. In this case Lord and Sherman sold their share, being five hundred and thirty bushels, to the plaintiffs, with the assent of the defendant, and on his advice. He promised to deliver the plaintiffs that quantity, and received from them the proportion of the duties, chargeable to Lord and Sherman. This, then, was a valid sale, and severed the tenancy in common. The damages are not excessive. It does not appear that Turk’s Island salt *was of a value superior to the other, which was from the island of St. Thomas. The plaintiffs gave six and six pence per bushel, and have recovered only that amount, with interest. The verdict invades no principle of law or justice: we are, therefore, against the motion. The plaintiff however, must stipulate not to bring any other action for St. Thomas’s salt.

Postea to the plaintifPs.

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

Spencer, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The defendant, with two others, (Lord and Sherman,) who were copartners, were tenants in common of the salt. One tenant in common cannot maintain trover- against his co-tenant, unless the thing holden in common be destroyed. In case of a sale by one, and a receipt of tbe money, an action for money bad and received will lie. In this case Lord and Sherman sold their share, being five hundred and thirty bushels, to the plaintiffs, with the assent of the defendant, and on his advice. He promised to deliver the plaintiffs that quantity, and received from them the proportion of the duties, chargeable to Lord and Sherman. This, then, was a valid sale, and severed the tenancy in common. The damages are not excessive. It does not appear that Turk’s Island salt *was of a value superior to the other, which was from the island of St. Thomas. The plaintiffs gave six and six pence per bushel, and have recovered only that amount, with interest. The verdict invades no principle of law or justice: we are, therefore, against the motion. The plaintiff however, must stipulate not to bring any other action for St. Thomas’s salt.

Postea to the plaintifPs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Cai. Cas. 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seldon-v-hickock-nysupct-1804.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack