Case Name: Vail v. Mumford
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1789-09
Citations: 1 Root 142
Docket Number: 
Parties: Vail v. Mumford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 142–142

Head Matter:
Vail v. Mumford.
Indebitatus assrimpsit will not lie up,on a judgment. It is no defense to an action against an absconding debtor that tbe persons copied, are not bis agents or factors.
ActioN of indebitatus assumpsit upon a judgment brought .against Mumford, as an absconding debtor — setting forth the judgment, execution and a return of non est upon it — also, it is averred, that said Mumford had secreted his property, .and had absconded; whereupon the defendant became liable, -etc. did assume, etc. copies were directed to be left with certain persons who were agents, factors, etc. of-said Mumford.
Plea in bar — That said persons were not, nor are agents, ■etc. to the defendant. Demurrer.

Opinion:
Judgment — Plea sufficient, upon the ground sblely of the insufficiency of the declaration; for indebitatus assumpsit will not lie upon a judgment. Cower 128. Eor it is no objection to the plaintiffs having judgment against the defendant, that the persons copied axe not his agents and factors.