Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Johns. 243

Hicks v. Burhans

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1813

New York Supreme Court · decided 1813-05-15

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. B. and others brought an action of assumpsit against Hicks, before the justice. The cause was hied by a jury.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1902

5 state decisions

201813182018301840185018601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The written promise to pay, if founded oh -it *246past consideration, may be good, if the past service be laid to have been done on request; and if not so laid, a request may be implied from the beneficial nature of the consideration, and the circumstances of the transaction. (1 Caines’ Rep. 585, 586.) Here the past service consisted in an expensive pursuit, by the plaintiffs, of certain fugitive debtors, who were indebted to the defendant an others ; and it appeared that the plaintiffs had exhibited their accounts, at a meeting of the creditors, and that the-defendant examined them, and made no objection, except to a single item of the charges. A request, in this case, might have been implied; and we ought to intend it to have been proved upon the trial. There are no formal pleadings in the case, and the return does not negative the fact of a request.

¶2There was no other objection raised that merits notice. The judgment must be affirmed.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/10/johns/243 · .json · Public domain