Volume 1 — Day's Connecticut Reports

In the Court below, TP HIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit.

In the Court below, A, CTION on a promissory note, executed by the defendant, dated the 25th of March, 1776, for 80/. payable to said Richard Racket, on the 1st of May, 1776, with interest.

In the Court below, JSl CTION of trespass quare clausum fregit. Plea, not guilty. On trial to the jury, the plaintiff offered in evidence a lease for fifteen years, from Abel Mumford, of the land in question, dated in 1796, which was duly signed, sealed, witnessed, and recorded ; but had not been acknowledged. The defendant claimed under a deed and lease from the said Mumford, dated in 1797.

In the Court below, THE plaintiff declared in assumpsit, on the following facts : That on the 19th day of June, 1799, he sold to ' * • . ⅛ ■ the Defendant a certain piece of land, and gave his deed , c , , , , , ihcrefore, describing it by metes and bounds, and con-taming 42 acres, 2 quarters, and 21 rods ; that the parties agreed, that such being the quantity of the land, the defendant should pay to the Plaintiff a certain price therefore, which, upon the execution of said…

In the Court below, j/V. CTION of trespass quare clausum fregit.

In the Court below, HP JL HE declaration charged the defendants with a combination to defraud the plaintiff, in the sale to him of 25,000 acres of Virginia land. The fraud charged was, in making false representations, respecting the title and quality of the land. Nichols, one of the defendants, was defaulted. The other defendants pleaded, severally, not guilty. On trial to the jury, the plaintiff offered depositions taken before justices of the peace in Virginia.

I , X HE plaintiff made a motion to erase this case from docket, the writ of error having no date. contended. that its having been served on the 5th of October, 1801, and returnable to the Court of Errors in June then ne;:t. was sufficient, without a date, . insisted that it was a nullity,

In the Court below, I'HIS was an action of trespass, in which the plaintiffs set out their right to the ship Ocean, by virtue of a conveyance from Gurdm L Miller, in the nature of a bottomry bond,-during a voyage from New-York to New-London, and thence to London. While she was at New-London, taking in Her cargo, the defendants took possession of her, and detained her thirty days.

In the Court below, T. HIS was a petition in chancery, praying for liberty , . , , to redeem certain lands.

In the Court below, CTION of book debt. Plea, the general issue. Verdict for the plaintiff. A bill of exceptions was filed, by the defendants, stating, that the only matter in dispute between the parties was the following charge, in the plaintiff’s book : a 179% a Oct. 4.

In the original petition, rri -L HIS was a petition in chancery to the County Court, stating, that on the 19th of October 1799, Turrell, one of the respondents, resident in New-Milford in the County of Litchfield, proposed to sell to the petitioner a lot of land in the Susquehanna Purchase, in Pennsylvania, and offered to procure a warrantee deed of the same from Kinney, another of the respondents, resident in Pennsylvania, defending against all claims, except the adverse…

In the Court below, T HIS was a petition to the Superior Court for a divorce.

In the Court below, THIS was a petition in chancery to redeem certain mortgaged, lands, brought to the Superior Court, in April, 1799.

In the original action, CTION of indebitatus assumpsits The declaration stated, that on the 13th of April, 1798, the defendant applied to Stewart, and others, to subscribe a policy, insuring S3,000 on the cargo of the brig Polly, from the Havannah to New-York, and represented to them, that the situation of the brig and cargo, as to safety, loss, or injury, was then wholly unknown to him ; that Stewart, relying on this representation, subscribed the policy for 8100 ; that, in…

In the Court below, TTHIS was an action of ejectment. The declaration contained the usual allegations. It began thus: “ In a plea, that to the plaintiff the defend- “ ants render the seizin, and quiet possession of a par- “ cel or tract of land,” &c. It concluded with a demand of damages and costs, and omitted any further demand of seizin and possession.

<p>The sentence conrfofalmi-ralty is conclusive, and cannot be impeached in this country, until regularly set aside, in the country where passed.</p>

In the Court below, Jl HE declaration alleged, that on the 28th of May, 1776, Phebe Shackmaple made her last will and testament, by which she devised and bequeathed to John Pachvood and Joseph Packivood, all her estate, of every kind or nature whatsoever, upon condition they should arrive to the age ol twenty one years ; , that she also gave, by the will, the use of said estate to Eliza~ belli Westcote, during her natural life ; that said Phebe, soon after executing said…

HP JL HIS is the same case, which came before this Court, at the last term, and was dismissed, on a plea in abatement, because no final judgment had been rendered therein, (a) At the subsequent term of the Superior Court, the defendant pleaded anew, not guilty ; the plaintiffs demurred; and final judgment was rendered against them.

<p>The respondents’ answer to a bill in chancery, praying for a disclosure, is conclusive as to the facts stated therein.</p> <p>Mere loss in a bargain, resulting not * from fraud, nor the failure of a warranty, is not a ground of relief</p> <p>The doctrine of implied warranty, does not apply to hinds. Failure of consideration, where the consideration stipulated is received, affords no ground of relief</p>

In u«e Court below., T. HIS was an action of debt, brought on a judgment, recovered by the present plaintiff, against the present defendant, before the Court of Common Pleas, in the County of Hampshire, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts. . ' ' Pica in bar, that the defendant, at the time the suit Ivas instituted against him, on which the judgment declared upon was founded, was an inhabitant of this State, residing in the Town of Sterling, and was notan inhabitant of the…

The plaintiffs claimed as heir to Daniel Sheldon, deceased. Isaac Sheldon, as administrator, procured commissioners to be appointed on the estate of said Daniel Sheldon, and, on their report, the Court of Probate, in 1785, ordered all his estate to be sold. Under this order, the administrator, in 1786, sold the land in question, at public vendue, to Daniel Seymour, who, on the same day, reconveyed the land to him.

In the original action, -A. CTION of assumpsit. The declaration stated, that one lili Pox, an inhabitant of Chatham, broke his leg, at Xew-Hartford, and being-poor, and unable to support himself, was cast, with his family, upon the Town of Xew-Hartford for support ; and that the select men disbursed § 50 out of the Town-treasury for lairing care of him; and concluded in the common form of indebtedness and. assumpsit, without alleging, that notice of the plaintiffs’ demand…

<p>A ve rdict must contain all the ■material fact» put in issue.</p>

In the Court below, TP A HIS was an action of book debt. The general issue being pleaded, and closed to the j ury, a special verdict was found, containing the following facts : The plaintiffs being joint owners of the brig James, lying in the port of New-Haven, ready for sea, and bound for the Island of Trinidad, the defendant, on the 26th of November, 1 “99, applied to them for passage for himself and family, and for freight of two horses and one barrel of apples, from…

<p>An agreement i r.ieivtl into during1 covert-ure, is void, ami cannot be Wtween bus-band and -wife* enforced m against the ex-¡ji.'bsnd.</p>

A FITS was an action on the case, stating, that the defendants proposed to sell to the plaintiff, and Elia* Glover, and others, a quantity of land, in the County of Russell, in the State of Virginia ; and it was afterwards agreed, that part of the land should be taken in the County of Shanhaway. The defendants affirmed to the plaintiff, that Beach had a good title to the land, and that the same was of a good quality.

In the Court below, JL HIS was an action on the case, stating, that the defendants had combined with Ephraim Pixley, Ehenczcr Center, and Eikanah Phelps, jun. for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, and had, by means of such combination, practised a fraud on the plaintiff, in the pretended sale to him of certain lands in that part of Pennsylvania ccmmcrdy called the Susquehannah Company’s Purchase. during the pendenev of As suit, the other JeitnAmt pleaded the general…

In the Court below. T „„ , r . . ,. , , , , Hlb was an action ci indemtatus assumpsit, in which the plaintiff declared, that he had conveyed to the defendant, at his request, a certain piece of land, and the defendant, in consideration thereof, promised to pay the plaintiff as much money, as said land was reasonably Worth. Plca non assumpsitissue to the iurv : and verdict 1 J J for the defendant.

In the Court below, N appeal was taken from the Court of Probate, approving the will of Ktzia Barber, and the judgment of the Court of Probate-disaffirmed, by .the .Superior Court. In the writ of error to this Court, the heirs at lav/ were made defendants.

<p>An action of trover cannot be sustained by one tenant in comma:;, avainst his co-tenant, unless the property be destroyed. A party to an instrument may be a witness to facts, subsequent to the execution thereof, which tend to invalidate it.</p>

In the Court below, THIS was an action on the case, stating, that in July, 1789, the plaintiff was a minor of nine years of age, and had no parents living ; that he resided in the Probate District of… Held: that every fact should be presumed, which by any posst-bility could be supposed to exist. In the case of Spencer v. Overton, (m) notice, though not stated, was presumed to have been found.