Hicklin v. Tucker
Hicklin v. Tucker
Opinion of the Court
Opinion of the court delivered by
This cause involves the same principle that did the cause of Gamble vs. Hutchins and White, (Peck’s Rep. 130. The opinion of Judge Haywood, was at a subsequent term of the court affirmed by Judge Peck, when only three judges were on the bench, and the demurrer sustained. That case settled the law, that covenant must be brought where the debt is to be discharged in bank notes, so that the real value of the paper money may be ascertained by the finding of the jury.
The plaintiff’s demurrer therefore, to the plea of the defendants, (relying upon the fact, that no demand was made,) reaches the first fault in pleading, and operates as a general demurrer to the declaration. The plaintiff declared in debt, that the defendants, by their writing ob
This court thinks that the circuit court ought to have given judgment for the defendants, to go hence without day from this suit, &c. because the plaintiff mistook his form of action, as appears from the declaration. This court regrets the necessity of turning the plaintiff round to his action of covenant; but there being no other legal mode of administering justice between these parties, we have no alternative but to give judgment for the defendants in this action.
Judgment reversed
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Hicklin v. Tucker. and others
- Status
- Published