Case ID: nh_3/html/0079-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the court.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MERRIMACK,
    
    
      AUGUST TERM, 1824.
    JEDIDIAH DANFORTH, vs. SIMEON DEWEY.
    
      A. purchased of B. two ploughs ; and. in an adjustment of accounts between them, the value of the ploughs was allowed to who afterwards refused to deliver them, and converted them to bis own use. — It was held, that A. mipht consider the contract as rescinded, and recover the price of the ploughs, in an action for money had and received.
    for two was for two another count for Assumpsit. One count was upon an account ploughs, of the,value of $24. Another count ploughs, sold and delivered. There was money. had and received.
    The cause was tried here at January term, 1824, upon the general issue ; when it appeared in evidence, that the parties, on the 4th November, 1822, made a settlement of their mutual accounts, and that on that settlement, two ploughs, then in the defendant’s possession, were taken into the account, and the value of them allowed to the defendant ; and it was agreed, that the ploughs should be at the disposal of the plaintiff: but the defendant withheld the ploughs, and converted them to his own use.
    The defendant objected, that evidence of these facts was insufficient to support any count in the declaration ; but a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the objection.
    Webster, for the plaintiff.
    
      Noyes, for the defendant.
   By the court.

In this case, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant two ploughs ; and, in an adjustment of accounts between the parties, the value of the ploughs was allowed to the defendant; yet he has refused to deliver the ploughs, and has converted them to his own use. It is objected, by the:defendant, that this action cannot be maintained upon these facts. But we think otherwise. It seems to us, that when the defendant refused to deliver the ploughs, the plaintiff had a right to consider the contract as rescinded, and to recover back the price he had paid for the ploughs. 5 John. 85, Gillet vs. Maynard.12 John. 274, Raymond vs. Barnard.

And it seems to us, that this plaintiff may recover upon his count, for money had and received, the price of the ploughs, Í* is not necessary, in order to support that count, that the defendant should have received money. It is enough, that he received money’s worth. 2 N. H. Rep. 333, Willie vs. Green.

Judgment on the verdict.