Wales v. Wetmore
This text of 3 Day 252 (Wales v. Wetmore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
unanimously. The only question reserved in this case is, whether, upon the facts alleged in the declaration, an action of assumfisit could be mainta n-ed ? Not, whether an action of account would lie ?
In many cases, the .plqjntiff may have his election; and may seek redress, either by an action of assumfisit, or of account.
If one receives money of another for an express purpose, and fails to apply it, assumfisit will lie.
In this case, the money was received for a right in certain lands in the township of Fairlee, in Vermont, [255]*255which Mr. Wetmore claimed to have purchased previous to the date of the receipt; yet it is averred, that 1 1 ’ no land had been purchased by him, nor any title offered to Mr. Wales. It appears, that the consideration wholly failed.
If assumpsit would not lie, the defendants might have demurred to the declaration, as the receipt was spread Upon the face of the record.
New trial not to be granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 Day 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wales-v-wetmore-circtdct-1808.