Volume 1 — Connecticut Reports

IN ERROR. THE Turnpike Company brought their complaint before the county court for Litchfield county against the town of Canaan, alleging that within said town there are two bridges on their turnpike road over rivers upon which it is, and ever hath been by law the duty of the town to build and maintain bridges ; that said bridges are ruinous and out of repair ; and that said town, though requested, wholly neglected and refused to repair them ; and praying the court to order…

THIS was an action of debt on bond against the defendant, as administrator of the goods and estate of Isaac Holmes, jun. deceased.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action of book-debt, brought by French against the plaintiffs in error, as administrators of the estate at James Selleck, deceased. In the superior court, the cause was referred to auditors, who found that the deceased was indebted to the plaintiff the sum of 135 dollars 71 cents; which sum was composed of 99 dollars 63 cents principal, and 36 dollars 8 cents interest.

THIS was an action of ejectment. The defendant pleaded the general issue, which was closed to the court under the statute(a). The cause was tried at Fairfield, December term, 1813, before Reeve, Smith, and Baldwin, Js.

THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis, alleging an unlawful arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff by the defendants. The cause was tried at Fairfield, December term, 1813, before Reeve, Smith and Baldwin, Js. On the trial the case was as follows. The defendant Raymond was a justice of the peace for Fairfield county, and the defendant Betts was a constable of the town of Wilton.

IN ERROR. THIS was a petition brought by Lewis to the superior court, for a new trial of an action of slander, in which Hawley had recovered a verdict and judgment against him.(a) The petition was voluminous, detailing all the evidence exhibited by Hawley on the trial, alleging falsehood, mistake, fraud and surprise, and averring newly discovered and material evidence. To this petition there was a demurrer.

IN ERROR. THIS was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for Stonington district, passed August 13th, 1812.

THIS was an action on the case. The declaration alleged, that the defendant was owner of a sloop called the Sea-flower, which was usually employed to transport for hire, goods, wares and merchandize, from one port to another in the United States, whereof Charles Whipple was master; that the plaintiffs put on board this sloop at Norwich, on the 24th of July 1812, a large quantity of cheese to be transported thence, to Philadelphia, for hire ; and that on the voyage much of…

THIS was an action of assumpsit for books sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendants, in pursuance of a written contract previously entered into between the parties. The cause was tried at New-Haven, January term, 1814, before Reeve, Trumbull, and Ingersoll, Js. The contract produced on the trial was in substance as follows.

THIS was an action of trover for a quantity of hay and corn-ears. The cause was tried at Haddam, July term, 1813, before Swift, Brainard and Baldwin, Js.

THIS was an action of book-debt. The cause was tried at Haddam, December term, 1813, before Mitchell, Ch. J. and Trumbull and Ingersoll, Js. On the trial the plaintiff offered evidence to prove the following facts : That in the year 1799, the defendants were owners of the schooner Fox, which they fitted out for a voyage, and constituted the plaintiff master, directing him to go and make as good a voyage as he could for them.

THIS was an action of disseisin, to recover certain lands specified in the declaration. Issue was joined on the plea of No wrong nor disseisin. The cause was tried at Haddam, December term, 1813, before Mitchell, Ch. J. and Trumbull and Ingersoll, Js.

THIS was an action on the case. The declaration first stated an agreement entered into on the 11th of April 1810, between the plaintiff on the one part, and T. Woodruff and J. Belden, jun. on… Held: that unseaworthiness at the time of sailing may be inferred from the condition of the vessel afterwards. 2 Marsh. 373. Selw. N. P. 1016. Talcott v. The Marine Insurance Company of New-York, 2 Johns. 130. 2. That the evidence offered to ascertain the damages was properly admitted.

AN action of trespass for assault and battery and false imprisonment was brought by Allen against Palmer before the superior court in New-Haven county, January term 1811.

THIS was an action of trespass, alleging that the plaintiff being seised and possessed of a certain close or piece of land in Waterford, (describing it,) the defendant, contrary to the mind and will of the plaintiff, and without law or right, and with force and arms, entered into and upon the plaintiff's said land ; and with the like force and arms, erected upon said land one certain dram or grog shop ; and with the like force and arms, dug up, broke and destroyed the…

THIS was an action of trover for a horse and carriage. The cause was tried at Danbury, September term 1814, before Reeve, Ch. J. and Edmond, J. On the trial on the issue of not guilty, it appeared that the defendant, as a sheriff’s deputy, plaintiff’s counsel described in the declaration, by direction of Thaddeus Betts, in a suit brought by him against one Wallace on a promissory note.

IN ERROR. THE original action was indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received, brought by Comstock against Richards before Eliphalet St.John Esq. in December 1812, to recover the sum of three dollars thirty four cents.

IN ERROR. THIS was a petition in chancery, brought by William Hart and the heirs of Samuel Mather, jun. late of Lyme deceased, against Gideon Granger, Esq. before the superior court in Middlesex… Held: and where said land lay ; and prayed that said case might be removed to the circuit court of the United States within and for that district.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration stated, That two suits had been brought before the county ccourt in Fairfield county, in one of which Shadrach Osborn, Garwood H. Cunningham and the present defendant were plaintiffs, and David Baldwin, Samuel Beers and others were defendants, and in the other David Tallman was plaintiff, and Solomon Glover, Daniel Ferry and others were defendants ; alleging a combination in the defendants in those suits to defraud the…

THIS was an action of account, brought by Holly as administrator of the estate of Ruama Holly, late of Stamford, deceased, charging the defendants with having received of said Ruama many sums of money amounting in the whole to 1500 dollars, to put at interest, and to render their account thereof on demand.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance in the usual form on the ship Governour Griswold, upon a voyage from New-London to… Held: that, if it was the intention of the master to unlade the ship’s cargo where the loss happened, she was to he considered as within the limits of her port of discharge, Suppose the plaintiff in this case had ordered the ship to discharge in New-York, and she had been lost after her arrival there, but before discharge begun ; would the…

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance on that brig Ganges and her cargo, at and from Gibraltar to the port of discharge in the United States, with liberty to go to St. Ubes or the Cape de Verd islands. The cause was tried at Middletown, July term 1814, before Swift, Brainard and Baldwin, Js. The Ganges sailed from St. Ubes, with a cargo of salt and other articles, and arrived at New-York, her first port in theUnited States, on the 10th of September 1811.

THIS was a petition in chancery, brought to the superior court in Fairfield county. The facts stated in the petition, and found by the court, were these. John Booth in 1795, conveyed a lot of land in Hudson to Stephen Booth, the petitioner, with the usual covenants of warranty and seisin.

THIS was an action of ejectment for several pieces of land in Norwich. The defendant pleaded No wrong nor disseisin ; on which issue was joined to the court. The cause was tried at New-London, September term 1814, before Trumbull, Smith, and Ingersoll, Js. On the trial, the plaintiff claimed title to the demanded premises as heir at law of Christopher Kilby, late of London, deceased.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action on the case, against Scott, as constable of the town of Oxford, for neglecting and refusing to deliver up property to be taken in execution, which he had attached in a suit between Crane and one Smith. The declaration particularly described the process, and recited the defendant’s return on the writ of attachment, and the return on the execution of the officer who held it.

THIS was an action of assumpsit against Bush as acceptor of a bill of exchange drawn by Ebenezer and Atwater Townsend, and payable to the plaintiffs or order. There was also a count for money paid, laid out and expended for the defendant’s use. The cause was tried at New-Haven, August term 1814, before Swift, Brainard and Baldwin, Js. On the trial, the defendant admitted the drawing and acceptance of the bill, as stated in the declaration.

IN ERROR. THIS was a petition to the county court of Hartford county, brought by the present defendants in error, praying for the appointment of a committee to view and lay out a public highway between two specified points, one in Suffield, the other in Windsor, to ascertain the place and course of such highway, and to estimate the damage done to any particular persons by laying out the same.

This was an action on the case, in several counts, the substance of which may be concisely stated as follows(a).

THIS was an action of ejectment. The cause was tried at Hartford, September term, 1814, before Swift, Brainard and Baldwin, Js. On the trial, the plaintiff claimed title to the land in question by virtue of the levy of two executions issued on judgments recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant, in actions of trespass vi et armis. The defendant relied, first, on a deed from himself to Noble Hills, his son.

THIS was a petition in chancery brought to the superior court, shewing that Judd mortgaged certain lands to secure several distinct debts due from him, one to Pearsall and Collins, one to Hicks and Joseph Shotwell, and one to John and Jeremiah Shotwell, which debts were unpaid ; that John and Jeremiah Shotwell being indebted to the petitioner, he brought his action against them as absent and absconding debtors, left a copy with Judd as their debtor, recovered judgment…

THIS was an action on the case against the select-men of the town of Branford, for appointing an overseer to the plaintiff.

<p>A grant by the General Assembly to A. and B. without the words heirs or assigns, of the exclusive privilege of running a line of stages on a certain road, during the pleasure of the General Assembly, is a grant to them personally, and terminates at the death of the grantees. And where a person claiming as assignee of such grant, by virtue of an assignment from the administrators of one of the grantees after their death, continued the line for nearly twenty years, without interruption, or the interference of any other line, it was held that tírese facts furnished no evidence of the existence of the grant, or of an exclusive right.</p>

IN ERROR. THIS was an action qui tam against Eastman, brought on the statute, tit. Fisheries, c. 1. s. 6.(a) to recover the penalty of 67 dollars for using a bush-seine in Ousatonnick river.

THIS was an action of assumpsit against Hall as indorser of a promissory note. The cause was tried at Hartford, February term 1815, before Trumbull, Baldwin and Ingersoll, Js. On the trial, the defence was, first, want of due notice of non-payment; and secondly, fraud in obtaining the note. The facts were these. The note was made by Asahel Loom is, dated the 30th of August 1813, and payable to the defendant or order, at the Hartford Bank, four months after date.

THIS was an action upon a policy of insurance on the ship Governour Griswold, underwritten for 10,000 dollars, in the same form, and upon the same voyage, as that before stated in the case of King v. The Middletown Insurance Company.(a) The cause was tried at Hartford, February term 1815, before Trumbull, Baldwin and Ingersoll, Js. Much of the evidence on the trial was the same as in the former case. The additional facts are comprised in the following statement.

THIS was an action on the case for fraud in the sale of a patent-right and licence to build, use, and dispose of a machine for manufacturing combs.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action on the case at common law against Wilcox, as constable of the town of Chatham, for neglect of official duty in executing and returning an execution issued on a judgment of the superior court in the plaintiff’s favour. The writ was dated and served the 16th day of September 1813, and returned to the Middlesex county court on the fourth Tuesday, being the 28th day, of the same month.

THIS was an action on a promissory note for 187 dollars 50 cents, dated April 12th, 1804.

THIS was an action of ejectment for a tract of land in Southbury. The cause was tried at New-Haven, at an adjourned term in February 1815, before Trumbull, Baldwin and Ingersoll, Js. Held: that a use at common law is executed in the cestui que use ; and such has been the commonly received opinion of judges and counsel in this state. In Massachusetts also the statute of uses has been judicially adopted. Wallis v. Wallis, 4 Mass. Rep. 135.

THIS was an action of assumpsit against the defendants as indorsers of a promissory note. The cause was tried at Hartford, February term 1815, before Trumbull, Baldwin, and Ingersoll, Js. On the trial, it appeared that the note was made payable to Hawley and Loomis, and by them indorsed. The first ground of defence was, want of notice of non-payment.

THIS was a petition for anew trial on the ground of mispleading. On the trial of the original action, (reported on a motion for a new trial ante 285.) the present petitioner, then defendant, pleaded not guilty, and a verdict was given against him. He now states, that he missed his plea ; as he had a good ground of defence, which, if pleaded, would have saved him from the demand of the plaintiff in that action.

IN an action of trespass, the plaintiffs declared that they, and those under whom they claimed, for more than twenty years past, had used, occupied, possessed and enjoyed the free, several and exclusive right and privilege of a certain valuable fishery for shad and other fish in Connecticut river, between Fort-Point and Pipestave-Point in the town of Saybrook ; which fishery had been thus occupied and enjoyed by the plaintiffs to the entire exclusion of all the citizens of…

IN ERROR. THIS was a scire-facias in a process of foreign attachment against Israel Allen, as the debtor, &c. of Ezekiel Allen, brought to the county court of Hartford county. On the trial, it appeared that Reuben Allen bequeathed to Ezekiel Allen “ one hundred dollars, and his said Reuben’s wearing apparel, to be paid in grain or neat cattle in two years from his said Reuben’s decease ;” and appointed the defendant his executor. Reuben Mien died on the 4th of February 1810.

IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit against Foot as indorser of a promissory note.

IN ERROR. THIS was a qui tam prosecution on the statute to prevent unseasonable night walking, and for punishing disorders committed in the night season,”(a) against Huntley and others, alleging that on the night of the 1st of January 1815, the defendants entered upon the complainant's land, and with force and arms, and against the peace, cut, girdled and destroyed forty-eight apple trees, and two pear trees, then and there growing, of the value of five hundred dollars, and…

THIS was an action of ejectment for a piece of land in Newtown. The cause was tried at Danbury, September term 1815, before Trumbull, Baldwin, and Ingersoll, Js. On the trial, the plaintiff claimed title to the land under a deed from the administrators of Richard Nichols, deceased, dated the 24th of August 1809, who, it was admitted, originally owned, the land.

THIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received to the plaintiff's use. The cause was tried at Danbury, September term 1815, before Trumbull, Baldwin, and Ingersoll, Js. On the trial it appeared, that the plaintiff and defendant, and their mother Deborah M’Lean, were executors of the last will of John M’Lean, deceased.

AFTER a verdict of guilty on an indictment for murder, the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment on the following grounds. 1. That one of the jurors was not, at the time of empannelling the jury, nor at the time of giving their verdict, a freeholder ; which fact was unknown to the prisoner, or his counsel, at the time of the trial. 2.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action against Bacon on a promissory note.

THIS was an action of debt on bond payable to the plaintiff as treasurer of the state. The declaration set forth the condition of the bond, and the proceedings to which it related.

THIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts. The first was general, stating that on the 11th of August 1810, the defendants and one Norton, since deceased, became indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 2000 dollars for goods sold and delivered in the city of New-York on a credit of six months.

IN ERROR. THIS was a prosecution upon the statute of Bastardy,(a) by the mother of a bastard child against the father, for its maintenance.

A NEW trial having been granted in this case pursuant to the advice of the nine Judges, (ante, 333. 341.) the cause came on for trial at Hartford, September term 1815, before Edmond, Smith and Goddard, Js. The defendants suffered a default, and moved to be heard in damages.

THE prisoner had been tried before the superior court, at a special session in Middlesex county, on an indictment for murder, and found guilty. Before the time appointed for his execution, he applied to the General Assembly for a pardon, or other relief ; alleging some informalities in the proceedings of the court preparatory to his trial. The General Assembly thought proper to order a new trial at the next session of the superior court in Middlesex county.

THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis against the defendants, for breaking and entering, on the 21st of October 1814, the plaintiff’s dwelling-house at the island of Nashawinna, in Dukes county in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and taking and carrying away several articles of personal property belonging to the plaintiff, particularly specified. The cause was tried at Norwich, September term, 1815, before Swift, Ch. J. and Brainard and Hosmer, Js.

THIS was an action on a promissory note given to the plaintiff as treasurer of the town of Hebron. The note was as follows. “On demand I promise to pay Amos Strong, treasurer of the town of Hebron, or his successor in office, one hundred dollars and sixty-three cents, unless abated by the select-men.

IN ERROR. THIS was a petition in chancery, brought by the present plaintiffs in error to the superior court, praying that certain promissory notes given by them to the defendant, in his capacity of administrator, should be given up or cancelled. The case, as stated in the bill, and found by the court, was as follows. In January 1807, the defendant was appointed administrator of the estates of Barber and Billings. He soon afterwards exhibited an inventory of each estate.

THIS was an action of ejectment for one equal and undivided moiety of a piece of land and a dwelling-house, of which the plaintiff averred that he was seised and possessed in his own right in fee-simple, as tenant in common with the defendant and one Russel Hitchcock, until a certain day, when the defendant entered and disseised him. The cause was tried at New-Haven, January term 1816, before Trumbull, Baldwin, and Ingersoll, Js.

THIS was an action on the case for false and fraudulent representations respecting the responsibility of a mercantile house, whereby the plaintiff was induced to sell them goods to a large amount on a credit, in consequence of which he sustained a loss. The cause was tried at Litchfield, February term, 1816, before Edmond, Smith and Hosmer, Js.

THIS was an action on the case against the defendants as common carriers.

THIS was an action on a promissory note. The cause was tried at New-Haven, January term 1816, before Trumbull, Baldwin, and Ingersoll, Js. The case, as claimed by the defendant, was as follows. Before the note in suit was given, the plaintiff, being the holder of two drafts, drawn by Asahel Loomis of Middletown, on Reuben Ward of New-York and accepted by him, applied to Loomis and requested of him that he would substitute other security for the drafts, and take them up.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action against the present plaintiffs in error for a disturbance in the enjoyment of a shad-fishery in Ousatonnick river. The cause, while pending in the county court, was referred, at the desire of the parties, to Asa Chapman, Benjamin Stiles, and Shadrach Osborne, Esqrs. who were appointed referees pursuant to the statute(a).

IN ERROR. THIS was information, brought before the county court, on the statute,(a) for suffering and allowing A. M. and others to travel in a hackney coach owned by the defendant, from New-Haven to Middletown, on the Sabbath-day.

THIS was a bill in chancery, stating, that Birdsey Norton, Esq. and John C. Bush were, from the first of July 1808 to the 27th of May 1810, and long afterwards, merchants in company, under the firm of Norton & Bush, and during that time, the plaintiff transacted business for them in the United States, and in foreign countries ; that in the course of such business, the plaintiff purchased for said Norton & Bush, and sent to them, diverse vessels, goods, wares and merchandize,…

A new trial having been granted pursuant to the advice of the nine Judges, (ante 382. 385.) the cause was accordingly tried again at Haddam, December term 1815, before Trumbull, Baldwin and Ingersoll, Js.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration, consisting of two counts substantially alike, stated, that in 1799, the defendants owned the schooner Fox, fitted her out for a voyage, constituted the plaintiff master, and directed him to make as good a voyage as he could for the owners ; that the plaintiff proceeded to Martinique,sold his outward cargo, and remitted part of the proceeds to the owners; that while in Martinique, the plaintiff agreed with Messrs.

THIS was an action of ejectment for three pieces of land in Weston. The general issue was pleaded, and closed to the court by agreement of the parties. The cause was heard at Fairfield, December term 1815, by Edmond, Smith and Hosmer, Js. It was admitted, by both parties, that Stephen Sherwood was formerly the owner of the demanded premises. The plaintiff claimed title thereto, by virtue of the levy of an execution in his favour against Stephen Sherwood in 1814.

THIS was an appeal, by the administrators of Miller Fish, deceased, from a decree of the court of probate for the district of Hartford, assigning dower, and appointing distributors to set out the same, to the widow. The case was shortly this. Miller Fish, in his life time, being seised of several pieces of real estate, mortgaged them to several persons, some for as much as, and others for much less than, their value.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration stated the following case. In May 1795, John Treadwell, Esq. and others, were appointed, by the General Assembly of this state, a committee, with authority to sell and convey, for and in behalf of the state, the lands claimed by the state lying west of the state of Pennsylvania, commonly called the Western Reserve.

IN ERROR. THIS was a bill in chancery, to set aside an award, and to examine and adjust the accounts of the parties. The bill stated the following facts. In April, 1814, Ranney conveyed, by bill of sale, to Allen, a sloop called The Opposition, as security for debts due from Ranney to Allen, and for indorsements made by Allen for Ranney’s accommodation.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, effected, during the late war between the United States and Great-Britain, on the ship Charles, from New-York to St. Bartholomews, with a warranty that she should be furnished with a passport from Admiral Sawyer in the usual form. The declaration averred, that the plaintiffs had an interest in the ship to more than the amount covered by the policy ; and alleged a loss on the high seas from capture, by the enemies of our country.