Bushnell v. McCauley
BUSHNELL v. McCAULEY
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William J. Murray, Jr. (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Murray
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., concurring.
The plaintiff employed the defendant, as an agent, to buy gold-dust, allowing him a certain per cent, on each one thousand dollars purchased.
The declaration alleges a deposit • of nine hundred and forty dollars for this purpose, and a refusal by the defendant, on demand, to account for, or pay over said money, or its equivalent in gold-dust.
The answer specifically denies a demand.
The defendant moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that no demand had been proved. The Court below overruled the motion-, at the same time instructing the jury that a demand need not be shown. This was error. “ In an action against an agent, for not accounting, etc., a request to account and pay over the balance must be stated.” 1 Chitty’s Pleading, § 331, and the cases there cited.
If necessary to be stated, it must be proven, as the allegata and probata must correspond.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
Cited by
- Keller Research Corp. v. Roquerre 11391 · 1951-09-11
- Edgerton v. Armour & Co. 10245 · 1950-12-12
- Burke v. Maguire S.F. No. 4668. · 1908-04-28