Vandegrift v. Haughey

Delaware Court of Common Pleas

Vandegrift v. Haughey

1 Del. Cas. 338

DecidedDecember 15, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 338 (Vandegrift v. Haughey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Delaware Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vandegrift v. Haughey, 1 Del. Cas. 338 (Del. Super. Ct. 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

Bassett, C. J.

Every man claiming in a court of justice must

pursue the form of remedy which the law has prescribed. There is no doubt that if before the Statute of Anne one tenant in common had received all the profits, no action would lie on the behalf of another, unless he was appointed bailiff; and an actual appointment was necessary. At present if one tenant in common receive all the profits, the Statute has given a remedy by the action of account render. There is no evidence that the defendant was ever appointed bailiff or ever promised to pay. In Wilkins v. Wilkins there was an appointment as bailiff and an express promise to pay, both of which circumstances essentially differ that case from the present. In a case like the present, at law before the Statute, there was no remedy. The plaintiff has not pursued the remedy given by the Statute and therefore is not aided by it. His present action does not lie and a nonsuit must be ordered.

McDonough and Rodney, JJ., of same opinion.

Whereupon plaintiffs were called and nonsuited.

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

Bassett, C. J.

Every man claiming in a court of justice must

pursue the form of remedy which the law has prescribed. There is no doubt that if before the Statute of Anne one tenant in common had received all the profits, no action would lie on the behalf of another, unless he was appointed bailiff; and an actual appointment was necessary. At present if one tenant in common receive all the profits, the Statute has given a remedy by the action of account render. There is no evidence that the defendant was ever appointed bailiff or ever promised to pay. In Wilkins v. Wilkins there was an appointment as bailiff and an express promise to pay, both of which circumstances essentially differ that case from the present. In a case like the present, at law before the Statute, there was no remedy. The plaintiff has not pursued the remedy given by the Statute and therefore is not aided by it. His present action does not lie and a nonsuit must be ordered.

McDonough and Rodney, JJ., of same opinion.

Whereupon plaintiffs were called and nonsuited.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. Cas. 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandegrift-v-haughey-delctcompl-1793.