Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Eldridge v. Hill — Opinion of the Court

If Eldridge & Tourtelotte acted in good faith, as it is clear they did, and without reward did what they had every reason to believe was in accord with the wishes of those who deposited the money, they are discharged. The thing to be done was the recovery of forty-four large record-books of one of the oldest counties of the State. It was an important thing to the owners of property in the county that it should be done.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Eldridge v. Hill — Opinion of the Court

This is the substance of the testimony, on which the judge put it to the jury as a question for them to decide, whether Eldridge & Tourtelotte should refund to the county the money which, as its gratuitous agents, they had paid to recover the books.
We think there was no such question; that in the absence of any pretence of bad faith there was no right of recovery. It is clear that the defendants were not required by the circumstances of the case to see and examine the books, or to await their delivery to the register, and his examination and report on their condition.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Eldridge v. Hill — Opinion of the Court

Although in the course of this charge the court calls them bailees and agents, it lays down a rule which would govern the case if the defendants had made a contract for a valuable consideration to restore the books and papers in good order to the county inside of seven days, or to return the money.
The bill of exceptions states as facts proved that 'all of the property except one deed and two powers of attorney, and the whole of the books which had been stolen from the office of the register of deeds, viz.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature