Hook v. Robison

<p>THIS was an action of indebitatus assumsit for 50l. had and received.</p> <p>offered to prove, that Hook and Robison exchanged horses, Hook giving with his horse 8l. That, it afterwards appearing, that the horse which Hook had received from Robison, having been stolen from one Rhinberger in Maryland, was reclaimed by him, Hook had given him up to the owner, and now brought this action, to recover the money which he had given to Robison, and also the further sum of 26l. Virginia money, which, he proposed also to prove, Robison had afterwards received, for the horse he got from Hook and sold to another.</p> <p>The action is for money had and received, we cannot admit evidence of a horse had and received.</p> <p>President. The evidence is clearly proper and must be admitted.</p> <p>The evidence was then given, as stated.</p> <p>Woods, The plaintiff, having given up the horse to Rhinberger, without any verdict or suit, has no right to call on the defendant now for the value of him; as it has never been established, that the defendant had not a good title to him, at the time of the sale. No man’s property shall be taken from him, but by trial by jury. Were it otherwise, the plaintiff’s cruel and indelicate treatment of the defendant, in having him indicted for a felony of which he was acquitted,* ought to prevent any recovery by him, and subject him to the costs of the prosecution. The acquittal on this indictment is evidence, that the defendant had the property of the horse.</p> <p>Hook had his option to contest the property of the horse with Rhinberger, or give up the horse, and sue Robison. We are not now trying an action for a malicious prosecution.</p>