Ralston Assignee v. Bell

March Term, 1796

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1796-03

THIS was an action for money had and received, &c. brought by Ralston, as assignee of Dewhurst, a bankrupt, against the defendant, who had sold goods of the bankrupt, by virtue of an authority from him ; but, it appeared in evidence, that no money had been received by the defendant, at the time of commencing the action.

Cited by 2 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1799

1 state decisions

2 counsel of record

Relies on Ruston's Executors v. Ruston

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1796-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

This was an money had and received · Case Law">action for money had and received, &c. brought by Ralston, as assignee of Dewhurst, a bankrupt, against the defendant, who had sold goods of the bankrupt, by virtue of an authority from him; but, it appeared in evidence, that no money had been received by the defendant, at the time of commencing the action.

¶2

The counsel for the defendant (Ingersoll, Lewis & Dallas) objected, that, on this evidence, the present action could not be maintained.

¶3

The counsel for the plaintiff (Rawle & Wilcocks) after some remarks, and citing Doug. 132, submitted to the decided inclination of the Court, and suffered