
    Menderback against Hopkins.
    Where a eon-an^cxecution^ toythe pontiff! without any deyiand of, or Vequestby, the defendant, he canñotmamtain. an the°“defendant ko paid,6 without
    no ohjection is made to the evidence given at a trial butthe^vlioieí jury"'every hi-drawn" ""'that could have been drawn, and eve ry reasonableinlowed1,"In support of the verdiet.
    IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court,
    
      Hopkins sued Menderback, by warrant, before the jusRce* The declaration was for moriey paid, and money jla¿ an¿ received, and, also, that Hopkins, as a constable, ’ 1 r 1 ’ Qn the 12th December, 1807, had an execution against Menderback, at the suit of Winne and Blair, for 4 dollars and 99 cents; and that he, Hopkins, paid the amount to Winne and Blair, but had never received it of Menderback: and, also, on the 20th November, 1806, an execution in favour of one Slernbey against one Whipple, J . ° . rr for S dollars and 87 cents, was delivered to him, Hop.kins, as a constable to be collected, and that he delivered the execution to Menderback, who was then a constable aEo, to be collected, and that he, Hopkins, was after-wards compelled to pay the amount to Sternbey ; and that .. - Menderback, afterwards, gave him, Hopkins, an order on one MlGee, for the amount, which had never been paid, <XL-
    There was a trial by jury, and Hopkins proved the payment of the amount of the execution, and the order drawn in his favour by Menderback, for 5 dollars and 87 cents, which was unpaid. No objection was made to the evidence ; and the jury found a' verdict -fqr the plaintiff1: for 12 dollars and 68 cents.
   Per Curiam,

The demand for the money paid on the execution, was illegal, without showing a previous demand on the defendant below, and a request by him to make the payment; but, as no objection was made to the evidence, a demand and request may have been presumed. It was to be inferred, as admitted, when nothing was said t<p the contrary. The question as to due diligence in presenting the order, and the non-payment thereof, does not appear to have been raised or agitated. Indeed, as no objection was made to any of the testimony, but it was submitted to the jury, every inference that could be drawn from the evidence is to be presumed to have been drawn; and the verdict, by reasonable intendment, is good. The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       See Jones v. Wilson, 3 Johns. Rep. 434.
      
     