Young v. Weeks

Citations

• 7 Daly 115

Syllabus

<p>¡In an action in the Supreme Court, the defendant had been arrested, and subsequently the order of arrest had been vacated on the ground that the complaint united two causes of action, on one only of which the facts authorized the defendant’s arrest. The plaintiffs discontinued the suit in the Supreme Court, and sued in this court, alleging, substantially, the same facts, but framing them so as to make a single cause of action, and procured an order of arrest against the defenddant. Held, that this second order of arrest was vexatious and should be vacated.</p> <p>The defendant was arrested on affidavits showing that by fraudulent representations as to his affairs the defendant had induced the plaintiffs under an agreement theretofore made, by which the plaintiffs agreed to fill the orders of the defendant “ to such parties as they may regard safe and responsible, and in such amounts as they shall deem proper,”—to sell and deliver to the defendant, and to his customers, at his request, goods to a certain amount, a part of which had not been paid for. Held, that there being nothing to show what portion of these goods had been sold to the defendant, and what portion to his customers, the order of arrest could not be maintained, and that the fact that the defendant had admitted that all the goods were sold to him upon his own credit, could not change this result, since the plaintiffs must recover, if at all, on the facts alleged by them as their cause of action.</p>