SEPTEMBER TERM, 1795.
THESE were actions on the case, in which the plaintiffs declared on a general indebitatus assumpsit, for money had and received by the defendant (who was the surviving administrator cum testamento annexo, of Catharine Holloback) to their use, respectively. They claimed distributive shares in the residuum
of the estate of Catharine Holloback, under her will: but it was questioned, whether such actions would lie, without proving an assumption, on the part of the defendant?
The COURT, however, declared their opinion, that the actions might be maintained, without proof of an express assumpsit; and verdicts were, accordingly, given for the plaintiffs, with leave to move for new trials.[*]
Anonymous.
THIS was an action on the case for obstructing a water course, by which the plaintiff’s meadow was watered. On the trial, it appeared, that the defendant had purchased a mill, with notice that the vendor had before sold the meadow in question to the plaintiff, covenanting that the plaintiff might use the water, over and above what was necessary for the mill. The defendant obstructed the water course; and it seemed to have been his object, by so doing, to compel the plaintiff to sell the meadow to him.
On these facts, the COURT recommended (with the concurrence of the counsel on both sides) that the defendant should do
Page 148
an act of justice, in securing to the plaintiff, by deed, the enjoyment of the water course; but he obstinately rejected the proposition. The plaintiff’s counsel, thereupon, executed and filed a writing, by which they bound their client to release any damages that the jury might give, in case the defendant should execute such a deed as the court had proposed: and the COURT advised the jury, on this condition, to find the full value of the meadow in damages; which was, accordingly, done.
Sitgreaves and Thomas, for the plaintiff. Ingersoll an Clymer, for the defendant.[*]
Page 149