Wheeler v. Bailey

13 Johns. 366
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

. .The conduct of the constable, i{i permitting Billings to go at large, amounted to a voluntary escape, and hp had no authority to- take any security for the redelivery of Billings to him; the promise pf the defendant was, therefore, void, fjad it fieen an absolute engagement .to pay the amount of the executions, it might have altered the case; but the undertaking of; the defendant amounted only tp his becorhing security for the .redelivefy ofBillings^ into his custody, a contract which the -law would not justify his making ; and it does not appear that lie has sustained aiiy damage whatever by the non-performance on. the part of the defendant TJie judgment must, accordingly, bp rey.ers.pd,!

Judgment reversed

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

Wheeler v. Bailey, 13 Johns. 366 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

13 Johns. 366 (Wheeler v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Riley v. Whittiker
49 N.H. 145 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1869)
Stevens v. Webb
2 Vt. 344 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1829)
Cheever v. Mirrick
2 N.H. 376 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1821)