Court Opinion

ID: 8129448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 17:08:07.282138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:39:26.173907
License: Public Domain

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.
The most favourable light in which this case can be considered for the plaintiff, is, that the defendant, by the purchase under the execution, became a trustee for the plaintiff; and it is clear, that the plaintiff could not reclaim his property, without paying or tendering, as well all necessary and proper sums advanced by defendant, on account of the trust property, as the original debt and interest. The question then is, did he tender all that was due? He did not, on the first meeting, make a legal tender of anything but the debt and interest, for the money was not produced. But the defendant, by refusing to produce his account of the advances, and declaring that he would not receive the money, dispensed with the necessity of a regular tender; and of course, if the cause rested here, it would be proper to view the case as if a regular tender of all that was due had been made. But, at another day, and before suit brought, it seems that the defendant did furnish the plaintiff with his account, to which the plaintiff contented himself with objecting that it was extravagant, without objecting to opening the transactions of the former day again, and without making a new tender of what was really due, or what he thought to be so. Had he objected, on account of the former tender and refusal, we will not say what would have been the legal effect of it. But he made no such objection; and by his conduct opened the former transaction, and merely questioned the accuracy of the account. Under these circumstances, he ought again to have tendered at his peril, as much as the defendant was justly entitled to receive; and not having done this, he cannot recover in this action. Whatever is justly due to the plaintiff, he may recover in another form of action.
The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.