Case Name: Executor of George White v. Woodruff et al.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1791-08
Citations: 1 Root 309
Docket Number: 
Parties: Executor of George White v. Woodruff et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
Executor of George White v. Woodruff et al.
Indebitatus assumpsit doth not lie, where the party has a written security for his demand.
Actiou of assumpsit, declaring that in A. D. 1785 the said George had in his store a quantity of flour, which had been there so long, that he had forgot to whom it belonged; that he sold it for £14 4s. lawful money and delivered the money to the defendants, who were a committee of a school district in Sharon, the interest to be applied to the support of schooling in said district; that the defendants in and by a certain writing bound themselves to the said George, that in case an owner of said flour appeared and made out his right to it, they would repay said money and fully indemnify him from said owner; that Eriend Griswold owned said flour, and had recovered a judgment against said George in his lifetime for said flour the sum of £18 lawful money, which the plaintiff was liable to pay; and that the defendants in consideration of said writing and the matters aforesaid assumed and promised the plaintiff to pay to him the sum of said execution and all cost and charges that might thereafter arise, and alleges a breach.
To this declaration the defendants demurred.

Opinion:
Judgment — That the declaration is insufficient. The plaintiffs remedy is upon the wiitten security; indebitatus assumpsit doth not lie in such case. See Carew v. Bond, Windham March Term, 1191.