Case Name: BESHERER against SWISHER
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1811-02
Citations: 3 N.J.L. 749
Docket Number: 
Parties: BESHERER against SWISHER.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
BESHERER against SWISHER.
ON CERTIORARI.
In trover for a bond, plaintiff must show it bis property. Trover lies not for a bond paid off.
The action below was an action of trover, brought by Swisher against John Besherer, to recover a bond which he alleged in his state of demand he had given to one Abraham Besherer, which bond he alleged to have been paid off; that the said bond had been lost, and had come to the hands of the defendant by finding; and that the defendant refused to deliver up the bond to the plaintiff, but had converted the same to his own use. It was said in the course of the argument, that John [548] Besherer, the defendant below, was the son of Abraham Besherer, the obligee.
S. P. 5 Holst, m.
3 Johns. Rep. 433.

Opinion:
By the Court.
There is no question but that an action of trover may be brought for a bond, but the plaintiff must have an actual, or at least a special [*] property in the bond. If a man should pay off a bond which he had given to another, and neglect to take it up, we apprehend that he cannot bring an action of trover for this paid-off bond. If this was law, the fact of payment might be tried in action of trover. We think, therefore, that the judgment must be.
Reversed.
Cited in Terhune v. Bray's Ex. 1 Harr. 53.