¶1The case of Blanchard v. Bramble, (3 M. & S. 131,) is in point, arid contairls the true distinction. In construing this and thelike statutes, allowing double cost's, -there is a distinction in reason, as well as authority, between acts of misfeasance, and those merely of nonfeasance. The latter is often a mere omission to fulfil a contract; which does riot' call for the protection of the statute;
2 Cow. 527
Platt v. Osborn
Decided February 15, 1824
New York Supreme Court · decided 1824-02-15
Assumpsit for money had and received. The action was brought to recover back money which had been rightfully received by the defendants, as trustees of a school district in the town of Louisville, in the county of St. Lawrence, under a resolution of the inhabitants of that district, imposing a tax on the plaintiff and others for the intended purpose of building a school house; but which resolution was after-wards rescinded and the purpose of building the school house was…
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1858
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1824-02-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →