Case ID: njl_1/html/0281-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Cur. Per Cur. Per Cur.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE BOARD OF JUSTICES v. FENNIMORE
    1. Where a public officer, whose duty it is to receive money, takes bonds in lieu of the cash, he is answerable as for so much cash.
    2. A notice to produce a book, given on the morning of the day of trial, is sufficient if the book be in or near the court.
    3. Collector is liable for interest upon moneys remaining in his hand after a reasonable time for paying them over.
    This was an action brought to recover of Fennimore certain moneys which had been received by him as county collector, and on a trial at bar the following points were ruled by the court:
    The plaintiffs offered in evidence: 1st. A receipt of three bonds from one Davis, in the handwriting of Fennimore, as [243] collector. 2d. That he had received the bonds iu payment of an execution at Jus suit, as collector against one Gar-wood. 3d. That defendant had admitted this item against him on a former trial.
    
      Leake opposed the admission of the evidence,
    contending that it was not legal testimony in an action of indebitatus, assumpsit, which would- not lie to recover bonds.
   Per Cur.

The evidence is admissible. These bonds must have been received as cash, for the defendant, in the capacity of county collector, had no right to receive them in any other way. He is therefore answerable as for so much cash; he makes himself the debtor by receiving them. Besides, after having admitted the correctness of the charge against him on a former occasion, he will not be permitted, without showing some good reason, to question it now.

Read, for plaintiffs, called for defendant’s book, and said it was in court yesterday.

Leake said the notice to produce it was only given this morning.

Per Cur.

The excuse is futile; unless the book is produced, every presumption must be made against the defendant.

Leake contended that no interest was chargeable against the defendant upon these accounts.

Per Cur.

The jury ought to allow interest for moneys in his hands, after a reasonable time for paying them over.

Verdict for plaintiffs, £1340 8s. 5d.

Cited in Orange v. Springfield, 1 South. 186. 
      
      
         See 4 Burr. 2489; 4 Dall. 113.