Case Name: Cook and Woodruff v. Atwater
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1792-07
Citations: 1 Root 435
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cook and Woodruff v. Atwater.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 435–436

Head Matter:
Cook and Woodruff v. Atwater.
The issue either of law or fact, joined and put to the court, must be answered explicitly.
EbRob to reverse a judgment of a justice, in an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought by said Atwater y. Oook and Woodruff, for thirty-seven shillings.
Plea in bar — That said Woodruff had an execution against Granniss and Norton of Arlington, in the state of Vermont, which he delivered to said Cook to levy and collect, he being an officer; that said Oook levied said execution on a certain horse of said Granniss’s on the 30th of September and posted him to be sold at the end of twenty days; that the plaintiff and said Granniss applied to said Oook and, requested him to deliver said horse to the plaintiff to keep, and to accept a silver watch as security for the return of said horse to be sold at the end of twenty days, which request was complied with, and on the 19th of said October the plaintiff and said Granniss came to said Oook and the plaintiff took back his watch and paid said execution, which was thirty-seven shillings, which said Oook, upon the request of the plaintiff, indorsed upon said execution, and is the same thirty-seven shillings mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration to have been received by the defendants.
The plaintiff replied that said horse was his property, which the defendant took by said execution; that he pawned his watch to redeem him, and to secure the return of him at the end of twenty days; that on the 19th of October he requested of said Oook to deliver him his said watch, and also said horse; which he refused to do unless the plaintiff would pay said execution, being thirty-seven shillings, which he was compelled to do in order to obtain his said watch, etc. and for no other cause or consideration.
The defendants traversed the taking of the plaintiff’s horse and his paying said money by compulsion in order to redeem said horse and watch! and for no other cause, and demurred to the rest of the reply. The plaintiff joined issue with them upon the fact and upon the law.
The justice having considered of the cause gave judgment that the plaintiff recover of the defendants the sum of £1 17 s. lawful money damages and cost.
Errors assigned — 1st. That an action of indebitatus assumpsit will not lie in such case. 2d. That said justice had not decided either of the issues of fact or law joined and put to him.

Opinion:
Judgment — Manifest error upon both points assigned in error; the justice ought to have decided both issues explicitly, and not by implication only. .The action is for money had and received — the plea is that the money was received on a lawful writ of execution — the reply is that it was extorted by duress, but the facts stated do not warrant the conclusion.