Volume 1 — Kirby's Connecticut Reports

In this case depositions were offered by the defendant, which were taken in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, more than twenty miles distant from the plaintiff’s residence, bnt within ten miles of their known agent and- attorney, neither of them being notified or present at the caption.

<p>AotioN on the covenant of seisin in a deed of bargain and sale.</p>

This was an attachment in which, both defendants were described as inhabitants of the town of Litchfield. The officer made return that he had attached the estate of John Bishop, one of the defendants, and had left with him a true and attested copy of the writ, etc., and-that the other defendant was out of the state.

The writ was directed to an indifferent person to serve and return, and the authority signing it had inserted the common reason, “ that no proper officer could be had without great expense.” The defendant pleaded in abatement, that the writ was dated a sufficient length of time before the time of service expired, to have been served by a proper officer, with the ordinary expense only; and therefore the certificate of the justice was manifestly a mistake.

EkeoR from the judgment of a justice of the peace. brought his action against Page, the plaintiff in error, before Justice O. P. stating in his declaration, “ Tbat said Page commenced an -action of book debt against bim before Jnstice D. W. demanding forty shillings, etc., to which he pleaded that he owed nothing.

. AotioN of book debt, nil debet pleaded, and verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment; and for cause alleged, that the account produced on trial, contained a charge of about £40 for a tract of land, and also a charge of about £3 as interest on part of the account; both of which were illegal as charges on book, and both were allowed by the jury, in their verdict.*

ActioN of debt on a recognizance for special bail. Tlie recognizance was taken to tbe adverse party and not to tbe county treasurer. On demurrer to tbe declaration, tbe only exception was, that tbe recognizance was improperly taken, for that it ought to bave been taken to tbe county treasurer and not to tbe adverse party.

Action on tbe case for these words: “ My wife has taken a false oath, and it was through tbe instigation of Beers and Booth, her sons. My wife has taken a false oath — she is a poor creature — and if it bad not been for Andrew Beers and David Booth, she never would bave done it; they are tbe foundation of tbe quarrel. My wife’s children bave taken ber before Squire Hinman, and bave made ber take a false oatb, and I bave been and taken a copy of it.

ActioN of trover, general issue pleaded, and verdict for the defendant.

The declaration states, that tbe defendants were administrators on tbe estate of Caleb Finch, deceased; and bad obtained an order from tbe Court of Probate to sell at public vendue a tract of land belonging to said estate, and that, by a number of advertisements, they gave notice of tbe time and place of sale.

<p>Appeal lies after default and hearing in damages.</p>

AotioN by' tbe sheriff oh a bail bond. Tlie defendant pleaded, that on tbe 1st day of April, A. D. 1779, while the action -was pending in court, and before final, judgment was rendered, the defendant did tender his principal to the plaintiff (he then being sheriff, etc.) to be taken into custody in discharge of his bond; but the sheriff refused to receive him.

This was a petition against tenants in dower, to compel repairs to he made, agreeably to statute. Tbe beirs and widow of Abel Gunn, deceased, made partition of his estate, by mutual agreement, under their hands and seals; by -which, a certain tract of land and buildings, were apportioned to the widow as dower; and the buildings had not been kept in tenantable repair.

INFORMATION at common law for uttering and putting off a counterfeit note, in imitation of the notes issued by the Hon. Robert Morris, Esq., superintendent of finance.

AotioN on the case, stating that the plaintiffs purchased of the defendant a certain tract of land supposed to contain sixty acres, described by certain metes, bounds and lines. That, at tbe time of sale and delivery of tbe deed, tbe defendant promised, if on actual mensuration said tract of land should fall short of sixty acres, lie would satisfy the plaintiffs for tbe deficiency; and afterwards, by an accurate survey and mensuration, there proved to be but forty acres.

Ebbob from the City Court in Middletown. The defendant in error brought his action on a promissory note, dated at New Haven the 7th day of June, 1784, before the City Court in Middletown, and obtained judgment by default. Errors assigned, 1.

EeeoR from the Court of Common Pleas. The case was, Jones recovered judgment against Huntington, in an action of trover, had execution, and committed him to goal. Huntington was a poor prisoner, and unable to discharge the debt. Jones preferred his petition to the Court of Common Pleas, that Huntington might be assigned in service, a sufficient length of time to satisfy said execution, and additional cost.

Error from the Court of Common Pleas. Thomson brought his action of book-debt against Wales and Moor, administrators on the estate of James M’Neil, declaring for a debt of £20 and demanding' in damage £24. The general issue was plead, and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for an appeal, which was denied.

This was a scire facias, for the affirmance of a judgment against the defendant, as administrator on the estate of Aron Cleaveland. The defendant pleaded, that the Court of Probate issued an order, that within a limited time all claims against said estate should be exhibited to the defendant, or be forever barred; and that due notice thereof bad been given to the plaintiff, but be did not exbibit bis claim within the term limited.

Huntington brought his action to the Court of Common Pleas,' on a promissory note, against Eitch, administrator on the estate of Azel Eitch, deceased. Eitch pleaded in abatement, that the estate of said deceased was duly represented insolvent (and in fact proved unable to pay more than one shilling and six pence on the pound).

Metcale brought bis action against Buel, to the Court of Common Pleas, on a receipt executed by tbe defendant to tbe plaintiff, as constable, for goods taken by attachment, containing a promise to redeliver said goods on demand, for tbe purpose of responding tbe judgment on tbe writ of attachment.

<p>EsROE,'from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas, on a petition for a new trial. Kimball brought his action against Cady on a promissory note to the Court of Common Pleas in August, 1781. The defendant pleaded a tender made in April, 1779. The plaintiff replied, that the money tendered, and now offered, consisted of continental bills of ■credit, which were not at the time of tender, and have never .since been, at the value of one-thirtieth part of the debt contracted and promised in said note.</p> <p>To this there was a demurrer, and judgment for the de>-fendant.</p> <p>petitioned for a new trial. He relied on the statute passed in October, 1782, which enacts, “ That in all actions brought before any of the Superior or County Courts in this state (either by original writ, appeal, or writ of error), for the recovery of any debt due by bond, note, or book account, contracted before or on the 7th day of January, 1780, and where the defendant in such action has, between the 1st day of September, 1777, and the 18th day of March, 1780, made a tender of a sum in continental bills of credit, to the creditor or creditors, in satisfaction of the debt demanded, and the creditor refused the same; then,, and in every such case, the court before whom such action may be brought, are hereby authorized to direct such case to be heard and determined by reference thereof to indifferent persons, to be mutually chosen by the contending parties; and in case they or their attorneys shall neglect or refuse to agree on such references, the said court are authorized to determine such cause according to the rules of equity, taking all circumstances into consideration: Which said referees so chosen as aforesaid, shall hear and determine such cause, as to them shall appear just and equitable, taking into consideration all the circumstances thereof, and make return to the same court where said cause shall be depending; who, unless sufficient objections be offered against such return, shall accept the same, and render judgment thereon accordingly.” And on this ground he alleged, that a repleader ought to be granted; for that he had mistook his plea, in that he did not traverse the defendant’s plea in bar, and thereby open the subject of inquiry at large to the court. That the statute enables the court, in such case, to give the cause an equitable consideration, and adjudge to the plaintiff what was equitable and just, notwithstanding the tender.</p> <p>Three exceptions were taken to this petition, at the Court of Common Pleas, by way of abatement: —</p> <p>1. That the petitioner bad not laid a profert of tbe legal proceedings mentioned in bis petition.</p> <p>2. That nothing appeared by the petition, but that complete justice had taken place.</p> <p>3. That the statute mentioned in the petition did not exist until long after the final trial; therefore not applicable to this case.</p> <p>The exceptions were adjudged sufficient, and the petition dismissed: And the decree of the Court of Common Pleas being examined on this writ of error, was affirmed.</p>

<p>This was an action on a written agreement between the plaintiff and defendants, stating, “ That whereas they were jointly concerned in the capture of a small boat and several cattle, in April, 1783, which, were libeled and condemned to the use of the captors, and distribution made accordingly: They therefore, jointly and severally engaged to pay the plaintiff (in whose name said condemnation was had) their respective proportions of any future expense that might arise in the premises.” Subsequent to this agreement, one Randal elaimed the property of the boat and cattle mentioned in the writing; for which he instituted a suit against the plaintiff, and recovered about £60. This action was brought to recover of the defendants their respective proportions of said expenditure.</p> <p>The defendants pleaded a discharge from the plaintiff, which was recited in these words: “ Received of Daniel Harris twenty-eight silver dollars, on account of a boat and cattle taken from Randal the 4th of April, 1783, and condemned to said Rogers, and since said Randal has got an execution against said Rogers for £67; and this is Daniel Harris’ receipt for his part of said execution.”</p>

<p>This was an action of disseisin, brought by the inhabitants of the town of Norwich, against Lie defendant, lessee of the first ecclesiastical society in said town. On special pleadings, the case was thus stated for the decision of court:</p> <p>The town of Norwich, before the year 1695, constituted but one parish or ecclesiastical society; and the inhabitants transacted their town and parochial business at the same meetings. In June, 1765, they appointed a committee to purchase lands for the use and accommodation of a gospel minister amongst them: The committee purchased of Stephen Gifford the lands in question, and took a deed of bargain and sale, expressed to be, “to the inhabitants of the town of Norwich, their heirs, successors and assigns.” In December, 1697, the inhabitants of the town, by a vote, levied a tax on themselves, for the purposes of discharging the minister’s salary, paying for the land purchased of Gifford, and defraying other parish charges.</p> <p>The lands in question were immediately applied to the use for which they were purchased, and have ever since been applied to the use of the ministry in the first society in Norwich. The inhabitants of the town, by vote, in December, 1701, sequestered for the use of the ministry, other lands adjoining the lands in question, and gave the whole the name of “the parsonage lot.” In 1716, by act of assembly, two other ecclesiastical societies were incorporated from the town of Norwich, called the East Farms and the West Farms; after which (to-wit), in July, 1717, Mr. Benjamin Lord was settled in the ministry in the old or first society in said town; and in August, 1717, tbe said society, by vote, granted to bim tbe lands in question, for tbe term of bis ministry; wbicb be beld until tbe time of bis death, wbicb happened in April, 1784.</p> <p>Tbe proprietors of tbe township of Norwich, in sundry legal meetings, did grant, lay out, and sequester, sundry tracts of land in tbe societies of tbe East and West Farms, for tbe support of tbe ministry in those two parishes.</p> <p>That tbe defendant bolds tbe demanded premises by force of a lease from tbe first ecclesiastical society in Norwich, for term of years, not yet expired, and bearing date before tbe plaintiffs’ writ.</p> <p>There was a demurrer to tbe replication, and joinder in demurrer — and judgment for tbe defendant.</p>

<p>This action was instituted against tbe sheriff, for tbe default of one of bis deputies, by writ of attachment, and tbe sheriff’s body arrested. He pleaded in abatement, that during bis continuance in tbe office of sheriff, bis person was not liable to arrest or imprisonment, by civil process; and for cause alleged, that as tbe sheriff is eos-officio beeper of tbe prison, an imprisonment .of bis person would operate as a release to tbe prisoners of tbe county. On the plea of abatement, tbe case was appealed to tbe Superior Court — and for tbe reason alleged in tbe plea tbe process abated.</p>

<p>Error from the Court of Common. Pleas. Henshaw brought Lis action on the case against the defendants. The declaration contained two counts:</p> <p>1. That in November, 1769> one Elisha Clark (since dead) executed a promissory note to the testator for £18 10s. And in August, 1771, for the consideration of £20 8s. 9d. (being the principal and interest then due) the testator assigned it to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had demanded payment of Clark, who refused, of which he had given notice to the testator; whereupon he became liable, assumed, etc.</p> <p>2. Count for money had and received.</p> <p>The defendants pleaded to the first count. That having prayed oyer of the note, there appeared to be indorsed on the back thereof by the plaintiff, £6 12s. 6d., received of said Clark, in January, 1779; and in April, 1780, judgment was rendered for the remainder. That at the time of the assignment of said note to the plaintiff, and for several years after, said Clark was abundantly able to discharge the debt. That the plaintiff did not prosecute said note in the law, until more than eight years after he received it; nor did he within that time give any notice to the testator, or the defendants, that said Clark had refused, payment; but held the same in his own custody, without offering to return it; that said Clark is now dead, insolvent, and the contents of said note lost.</p> <p>That the second count is'for the same matter, cause and thing alleged in the first count.,</p> <p>Tbe plaintiff demurred generally — and judgment was rendered for tbe defendants.</p> <p>Tbe error assigned was, that tbe plea in bar was in substance tbe general issue, and contained only a denial of tbe facts stated in tbe declaration; therefore could not be pleaded in bar, but if true, ought to have been given in evidence under tbe general issue.</p> <p>pleaded in abatement, that the plaintiff appealed from tbe judgment of tbe Court of Common Pleas during tbe sitting of tbe court, and entered bonds therefor, according to law; therefore final judgment was not yet rendered in said cause.</p> <p>demurred, because no duty bad been paid on tbe appeal — and the plea was adjudged insufficient.</p>

StutsoN was indicted, on tbe statute against counterfeiting, and a verdict found against him.

ActioN on book debt. The defendants pleaded, that the book of the plaintiff, on oyer, is found to consist of articles and services done and furnished for the defendants, as co-partners and traders in company, between the years 1761 and 1766. That on the 15th day of December, 1768, the defendants, by a writing under their hands, dissolved the copartnership of the company of Charles and George Caldwell.

This was an action of trover for a beifer. Plea, not guilty. Tbe plaintiff claimed tbe property of tbe beifer, by a transfer from Nathaniel Baldwin Woodruff, on tbe 24th day of October, 1788, in payment of a debt due to tbe plaintiff by note. Two witnesses testified to tbe sale: They said it was in tbe ■evening — that they were only called in to witness thé bill of sale, wbicb was written in another room.

Eeeoe from tbe judgment of a justice of tbe peace. Scott brought bis action qui tam, .against Bill, for an assault and battery, demanding damage £4. Tbe justice rendered judg-meat for the plaintiff, which was recorded in these words: “ Watertown, January 28th, 1786.

<p>Deeds may be delivered to arbitrators for tbeir disposal as they shall award the title; and upon publishing the award the deed becomes absolute to the person in whose favor it is made.</p>

ActioN of trespass for false imprisonment. The declaration states, that, “ On the 26th day of September, A. D. 1783, in tbe northeast precinct, in Dutchess county, state of New York (within the county of Litchfield), with force and arms, a bigb-banded assault on tbe body of tbe plaintiff tbe defendant did make, and did then and there, without law or right, in a spiteful and malicious manner, take, seize, and cause to be arrested, tbe body of tbe plaintiff, and with tbe same…

<p>Ur this case tbe plaintiff offered a witness, who bad engaged to pay bis, tbe plaintiff’s, attorney for carrying on tbe suit (tbe plaintiff being a poor man), and bad a promise from tbe plaintiff tbat part of tbe avails of tbe suit, if a recovery was bad, should be applied to the payment of a debt then due to the witness from the plaintiff. But,</p>

This was an action of booh debt. The account exhibited consisted of one article only (to-wit), twenty half-johannes. The charge was not in the handwriting of the deceased. moved that the plaintiff be compelled to produce the original entries of the deceased, or suffer a nonsuit. stated, that by accident, the original entries, which were in the handwriting of the deceased, were totally lost, and could not be produced.

Tbe case was, that oel the 10th of March, A. D. 1783, the petitioner, together with one Joshua Wells and Samuel Doud, became obligated to Jared Lane, one of the respondents, in the sum of £167 16s. lawful money. Wells and Doud, in consideration that the petitioner had become bound for them, on the same day executed to him an indemnifying bond, of sufficient amount to save him harmless.

Eeeoe from the Court of Common Pleas, on a bill of exceptions. Held: that if it was an assumpsit, it might be taken advantage of at tbe trial, for it would not be tbe same contract, but it ought to be pleaded in abatement in tbe case of a tort.” Tbe chief judge, mentioned a case which bad been determined upon tbe authority of tbe case now read from Strange; but said tbe later authorities were tbe…

Tuts was an indictment for adultery. After verdict, Mr. Eeeve and Mr. Tracy, counsel for the prisoner, moved in arrest.

<p>The defendant cannot demur to the declaration, after having pleaded to issue.</p>

<p>On final judgment in favor of a plaintiif, after abatement and amendment, the plaintiff shall recover no cost, antecedent to the amendment, excepting writ, duty and officers,’ fees.</p>

Assumpsit. The declaration is: “ That on the 23d day of September, 1784, the defendant received of the plaintiff £29 6s. 8d. in orders on the one shilling tax; which orders the defendánt then and there promised to return to the plaintiff by the 1st day of July then next, or to- account with the plaintiff for said orders in some other way, by said time; as appears by a writing under the defendant’s hand, of the date above, ready in court to be produced.” \ To this declaration…

AotioN for breach of covenant. The declaration was, that the plaintiffs having called the defendant, in the customary way of calling candidates for the ministry, to settle with them as a gospel minister; and he having covenanted and agreed to the same; for the better understanding and mutual advantage of the parties, at Litchfield, on the 22d day of October, 1772, the plaintiffs and defendant covenanted and agreed, among other things, as follows, viz.: “The church and…

INFORMATION qui tarn, on the statute for working unsealed leather.

This was an action of trover against several defendants. Mr. Davenport, for tlie plaintiff, offered to read a deposition taken ont of court; bnt it appeared tbat one of the, defendants was neither notified or present at the taking thereof, although he lived within four miles of the place of caption. And,

assigned the following reasons for their appeal: That the appellant is one of the heirs of Uezekiah Burr, deceased; and that said Burr, in his lifetime, was well seized and possessed, in his own right in fee simple, of a certain tract of land, lying in Reading, in the county of Fairfield, containing about 160 acres, bounded, etc. and continued thereof so- seized until his death, which happened, etc. Upon the decease of said Burr, the said estate descended to the appellant,…

■ ActioN on mutual promises (to-wit), That if the plaintiff acquired a good title to certain lands, which he had attached as the property of one Gnyer, and should make a good conveyance of said lands in fee simple to the defendant, then the defendant engaged to become obligated to the plaintiff in the sum of £209 payable in a reasonable time; which agreement was in writing, with a penal clause.

This was an action of debt on bond; tbe declaration in common form. Mr. Ingersol prayed oyer of tbe bond, wbicb be recited at large in bis plea, and concluded by demurring to tbe declaration. Tbe bond appeared to have been taken to tbe plaintiff, in tbe capacity of constable of tbe town of Ridgefield.

This was an action on tbe statute against secret assaults, wherein it is enacted,— “ That if any person shall break the peace, by secretly assaulting, beating, maiming, wounding, or hurting another, the person so assaulted and injured, making application and complaining to the next assistant or justice of the peace, showing him what hurt or wounds he has received thereby; such assistant or justice shall forthwith grant out a writ to the sheriff of the county, or his deputy,…

This was an action of trespass for false imprisonment. The defendant pleaded that he instituted a suit against the plaintiff, on a promissory note, before the City Court, in the city of Middletown, and obtained judgment thereon, by default: That execution was duly granted upon said judgment, by virtue of which the plaintiff was taken and imprisoned; which is the same and only imprisonment complained of. Replication.

This action was brought upon the following written promise (viz.) _ “This balance of £44 4s. is agreed to be paid in good West India rum, delivered in New Haven, as soon as I have any come to band; or if none should come, to procure it at the current market price, and deliver it to John Suffrein or William Coley, or order.

This action was against the sheriff of New Haven county, ±or the neglect of his deputy in not levying and returning an execution which issued on a judgment of the Superior Comí, tolden in the county of TaMuld.

Petek Grant, and Eleanor his wife, brought their action of trespass against Joseph Wilford, Isaac Smith, John Blackstone, 2d, Timothy Blackstone, Noadiah Bogers, and Samuel Hoadley, Jr., for an assault and battery committed upon said Eleanor. At the time of trial, Wilford and the two Black-stones made default.

Aotxof of disseisin. On special pleadings tbe case was — Tbat John Knowles, by bis last will, dated tbe 30tb day of November, 1753, among other things, devised tbe lands in question to bis “ daughter Mary Knowles, and tbe heirs of her body forever.” Mary Knowles was married in June, 1762, to Alexander Chalker, and bad issue a daughter, Bridget (wife of tbe plaintiff) born September, 1764.

This was an action of debt, on a judgment rendered by Ptife Obmd 6Í Common Picas in the county ol ‘BesksiÚYe, and commonwealth of Massachusetts. • The defendant pleaded in abatement, “ That at the time of bringing the action to the Court of Common Pleas, upon which the judgment referred to in the plaintiff’s declaration was rendered, he, the defendant, was an inhabitant of the town of Somers, in the county of Hartford; and that the plaintiff, in said original action, prayed…

This was a general indebitatus assumpsit, for money bad and received. Tbe case, from tbe pleadings, was tbis: — Tbe plaintiff being brigadier-general of a brigade of militia, ánd tbe defendant a colonel under bis command, received of tbe plaintiff tbe sum of £1,578 in bills of tbis state, to be applied to public use, and to account.

Tuts was an action of book debt brought by Chapman and Griggs, in the capacity of assignees of George Caldwell, a bankrupt.

ERROR from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. The case was,— The plaintiff, being administratrix on the estate of Zachariah Bun.ce, deceased, brought her action of the case against Jonathan Bunco, the present defendant, declaring, “ That about the 1.1th day of April, A. D. 1768, the said Zachariah, being then in rfuQ life, and the said Jonathan, in and by their certain bond or writing obligatory, by them null executed, bound themselves, their heirs, executors and…

This was an action on the case, against the defendant (who was a justice of the peace) for issuing a writ of replevin, without taking legal and sufficient bonds.

This was an action brought by Church, in the capacity of administrator on the estate of John Coleman, deceased, against the town of Norwich, for the recovery of a sum of money, paid by the intestate to Joseph Talcott, Esq. treasurer of the state of Connecticut, to the use, and for the proper debt of said town. The general issue was pleaded — and a verdict for the plaintiff. Eor the defendants, it was moved in arrest of judgment:— 1.

Ebeoe from tbe judgment of a justice of the peace. Moses brought- his action against Clark, on a promissory note, demanding £4.— Clark pleaded, that the note on which, etc. contained, by corrupt contract and agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, a greater sum than at the rate of £6 for the forbearance of £100 for a year; and also, that the plaintiff did, after the giving and executing said note, viz. in the month of July next after the date, make another corrupt…

EbROR from tbe Court of Common Pleas. M’Olellan brought his action on a promissory note, against Morris, reciting the note in Ms declaration, which was in the following words, viz. “Eor value received, I promise to pay Samuel M’Clellan, or Ms order, £17 3s. 5d. by the 1st day of April next, or use till paid.” There was no averment in the dclaration of what was meant by the words, “ use till paid.” On demurrer, for the uncertainty of this declaration, judgment, by the Court…

This was an action on the statute; against vexatious suits; which is, “ That whensoever any plaintiff shall wittingly and willingly wrong any defendant, by commencing and prosecuting any action, suit, complaint, or indictment, in bis own name, or in tbe name of others, with intent unjustly to Tex and trouble such defendant, such plaintiff, being legally convicted thereof, shall pay treble damages to the party grieved, and be fined the sum of forty shillings.” The declaration…

This was a petition in chancery. The case was,— that Charles Hinkley and Jabez West, being merchants in company, under the firm of Hinkley & West, became indebted to the petitioner, for goods received to their joint use. On a settlement of the company accounts with the petitioner, West executed to him a noto, for the sum found due, under the firm of the house, viz. Hinkley & West.

This was a scire facias, against garnish.ee. The plaintiff brought his original action against Morse, by foreign attachment; which, on the 27th day of September, 1784, was regularly served upon Bull (the garnishee) by copy, he being indebted to Morse by promissory note.— Judgment was obtained by the plaintiff against Morse, execution issued, and non est inventus returned.

This was an action of book debt, and tbe general issue pleaded.

. Eeeoe from the judgment of a justice of the peace. The •plaintiff in error (as is suggested) confessed a judgment on a note to the defendants, the contents of which, with interest, amounted to £27 3s. 5d. The justice entered up two distinct judgments, the one for £20 and the other for the remainder.

Eeeoe from the Court of Common Pleas. The selectmen of the town of Lyme, brought their petition to the Court of Common Pleas, setting forth — “ That Samuel Bennet, of said Lyme, by reason of age and infirmity, has become poor, impotent, and unable to maintain himself; and that he has no estate wherewith it may be done: That Elizabeth Mack, of said Lyme, is the daughter of said Bennet, and lawful wife of Josiah Mack; and that said Josiah Mack is possessed, in said Lyme, of a…

This was a scire facias against garnishee; to which he pleaded, that Benjamin Shearman, defendant in the original suit, was not, at the time of bringing said suit, an absent or absconding debtor; but, at that time, and for more than eight months next preceding, had been a dweller in the town of Norwich, and the plaintiff’s debt (if any) arose for boarding and lodging said Shearman in his house during said term; and that the original writ was never served upon said Shearman…

<p>This was an -action of book debt. The case, as stated in the pleadings and found by the jury, was tMs:— On the 11th day of July, A. D. 1782, the testator covenanted with the plaintiff to sell him a certain lot of land; and in consideration thereof, the plaintiff paid the sum of £12,- and took the following writing: — “Keceived of Ephraim Minor, £12, in part of my water lot, in the town of New London, wMch I have tMs day sold him for £900 — £300 of wMch is to be paid, in money, in the course of two months, and the residue, being £600 to be secured by a mortgage of the premises.”</p> <p>Minor took immediate possession of the land, by the consent of Erving, who, at the same time, advised Mm to erect a house, and make other improvements upon it, assuring him, that in case he should fail to make payment, so as to acquire a title, he should not lose the betterment so made.</p> <p>■ Minor failed to make payment, so as to acquire a title to the land; and an action of ejectment being brought against him, he brought tMs action of book debt, for the labor, ma-teñáis, etc. laid out and expended in erecting buildings upon said land.</p> <p>These facts being pleaded, and found by the jury; and a verdict for the plaintiff — Mr. Ooit moved in arrest of judgment, assigning for cause:—</p> <p>1. That from the facts disclosed in the pleadings, it appears, the plaintiff’s demand arose out of a special contract, made between him and the deceased, and committed to writing: That if anything was due to tbe plaintiff, be ought to have brought his special action, or bill in equity, for the case stated will not support an action on book.</p> <p>2. That the issue put to the jury is totally immaterial and improper.</p>

<p>Two judgments rendered on suits of a like kind, and depending on similar principles, may t)e joined in tlie same writ of error.</p>

This was an assumpsit, in' which the plaintiff declared, that the defendant received of him sundry articles of merchandise, which he promised to dispose of to the use of the plaintiff, and account with the plaintiff therefor when requested: That the defendant had disposed of the articles, but refused to account. The general issue was pleaded, and a verdict for the plaintiff. moved in arrest of judgment;— 1. For the insufficiency of the declaration: 2.

Eeeoe from tbe Court of Common Pleas. Huntington brought his action against Cbampbn, on a promissory note. Issue was joined on tbe plea of full payment. On tbe trial of tbe case, one Thomas Adams was produced as a witness, by tbe defendant, to prove tbe payment.— He testified, that some time before tbe institution of this suit, be drew an order upon tbe plaintiff, in favor of said Cbampbn, to the amount of tbe debt contained in tbe note.

<p>It is good cause for a challenge, that a juror now impaneled was on the jury when the cause was tried in the lower court, but not sufficient cause to arrest judgment after verdict.</p>

ActioN on'promissory note, first brought before the City Court in Norwich, and came to this court by appeal.

<p>This was an action upon a joint and several obligation, given by tbe defendant and one William Campbell. On trial of tbe cause, witnesses were offered, to prove what Campbell, the other obligor, not joined in the suit, though equal in interest, had said against himself, respecting the case, since the obligation was given. But,</p>

<p>The defendant, in this case, was under tbe care of a conservator. His counsel, tbe last term, pleaded in abatement, tbat tbe conservator was not notified of tbe suit. Tbe court refused to abate tbe process; but ordered tbe action continued, tbat tbe conservator might be notified. Tbe plaintiffs took out a citation for tbat purpose, but through mistake it was not served but a few days before tbe session of court.</p> <p>Mr. Dixon now moved, tbat tbe action' might be erased from tbe docket, because tbe conservator bad not been legally notified of tbe suit, agreeably to tbe order of court last term.</p> <p>" Mr. Chandler objected, tbat tbe law does not require tbe same time to be observed in tbe service of such citation, as in case of original process.</p>

ActioN of disseisin. The general issue being pleaded, was joined to the court.

<p>Action of debt on Judgment may fee brought where there is a former judgment unsatisfied, though return of non est inventus hath not been made.</p>

<p>AotioN of debt on the statute against importing goods into this state, without paying the duties.</p> <p>After a verdict was found for the defendant, a question arose, whether the jury could be legally returned to a second consideration, the action being founded on a penal statute. But,</p>

This was an action of trespass, for false imprisonment. The general issue pleaded. The case was this — The plaintiff was an inhabitant of Mansfield, in the county of Windham; the defendant was an inhabitant, and constable, of Willington, in the county of Hartford: He had in his hands a writ of execution, against the plaintiff and one Marcy (who was also an inhabitant of Willington) for twenty-three shillings, debt and cost.

Ebror from a decree in chancery. Bennet brought his petition to the Court of Common Pleas, sitting as a Court of Chancery, stating — That… Held: without mention thereof, till after the death of said Wales (which happened in the month of October, 1783) — That Lothrop then prayed out an alias execution, to collect said sum of £15 3s. 8d. not indorsed upon said former execution; which alias execution he delivered to a deputy sheriff, and the same was levied upon the personal…

The declaration set forth, a promissory note, dated the 17th. day of October, A. D. 1782, in these words: — “For value received, we, Bela Elderkin and Hezekiah Bissell, promise, to pay Francis Bulkley, within thirty days from the date hereof, the amount of his bill, for repairing, sheathing, caulking, and fitting for sea, the sloop- Sally, upon the application of John Stanniford and Bela Elderkin, by producing the security of said Stanniford and Elderkin, and delivering the…

This was an action of debt on bond. The defendant having oyer, set forth the following condition, viz. — “ The condition of the above obligation is such; that whereas the said Ezekiel Williams, Esq. sheriff, as aforesaid, hath now deputed the said William Joyce, to serve as deputy sheriff throughout the county of Hartford, and to execute all lawful writs, etc. Now if the said William Joyce shall faithfully perform said office, and duly execute all lawful writs according to…

This was an action upon an assumpsit, to pay the debt of another, in case of failure. The substance of the declaration was - — That one William Warner, of New Canaan, in the county of Albany, was indebted to the plaintiff, in the shm of £21 5s. lawful money, by note, bearing date the 21st day of September, A. D. 1781.

This was an. appeal from a judgment in tbe Court of Probate, establishing tbe will of Mary Kellogg.— Tbe testatrix was possessed of a large real estate, which sbe derived from a former husband, by devise: She made ber will, devising all tbis estate to Elias Kellogg, ber then busband (except two small legacies to ber brother and brother’s daughter) and appointed him sole executor. Tbis will was exhibited before tbe Court of Probate, proved, and established by tbe judge.

Erbob from tbe judgment of a justice of tbe peace. Hinkley and others, selectmen of tbe town of Tolland, brought their action before a justice of tbe peace, againgt Wilson, and tbe other inhabitants of tbe town of Coventry, for certain sums of money advanced for tbe necessary relief and support of Amy Caesar and her two children, alleged to be tbe proper paupers of tbe town of Coventry.

ActioN of trover, for 193 barrels of tar, and ten barrels of pitch. The defendant, being constable of New London, took the property in question, as the estate of William Prince, by attachment, at the suits of Jedidiah Leeds, Job Taber, & Co. and also, by execution, in favor of Edward Hallman, & Co. The defendant acted by order of the creditors.

MotioN was made for a new trial, during tbe session of tbe court at wbicb judgment bad been rendered: It was committed to writing, read by tbe clerk of tbe court, in tbe bearing of tbe adverse party and bis counsel, and tbe duty paid. - I took two exceptions, by way of abatement:— 1. That tbe defendant bad not been lawfully summoned to appear and defend against said motion. 2.

ActioN of book debt — the general issue pleaded. The •charges exhibited were for sundry articles of merchandise, sold and delivered in New York, at one year’s credit, before the late revolution. — ■ It appeared in evidence, that the course of trade in New York, and the custom of merchants there, was to charge interest on the balance of their accounts, after the expiration of one year, whether there was an express agreement h> that purpose or not.

<p>A sheriff cannot become bail, or be answerable in that character for any person by him arrested; but if be suffers the person arrested to go at large, without taking sufficient bail, he is answerable in his official character.</p>

AotioN on tbe case, for words. Tbe jury found a verdict for tbe plaintiff, and four pence damage. Mr. Tracy and Mr. Allen'moved in arrest of judgment, and alleged for cause, 1.

Ereor from the judgment of a justice of the peace. On the application of Butler, to George Gatlin, a justice of the peace, the following warrant was issued, viz. “ Whereas Josiah Butler hath made complaint, under oath, that he lost, on or about the 11th day of March, in Torrington, about twenty pounds of good pork, out of the cellar of Daniel Wlnchel, of the value of ten shillings, lawful money; it being taken by some evil-minded person: And said Butler suspects one Benjamin…

In an action of debt on bond — tbe defendant, after oyer, Set forth a condition, in the following words, viz. — “It is covenanted between the said parties, to refer and submit the whole matter (in every consideration) of the injury done to the private parts of E. B. Jr. son to E. B. aforesaid, by S. B. son to the wife of W, T. some time in November instant, to be finally settled and determined by the arbitrament and award of Messrs.

This was a writ of rh'drn, on a tenancy in common. — • After a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendants moved in arrest of judgment, for the insufficiency of the declaration. And,

IN this case, tie deposition of Hezekiah Tbomson, Esq, was, by tbe defendant, offered in evidence. — Tbe deponent lived more than twenty miles distant from tbe place of trial, but within seventeen miles of the adverse party.

<p>A scire facias is a judicial writ, issuing for tlie purpose of carrying into effect an antecedent judgment; it ought, therefore, to issue from the court rendering such judgment, where the records of it remain.</p>

This was an action of disseisin, brought by the inhabitants of three ecclesiastical societies, in Fairfield and Norwalk, for certain lands described, which were conveyed to the plaintiffs by virtue of an act of the legislature.

<p>A person whose property was confiscated, for the benefit of the state, is still liable to the subjects of the same state for his antecedent contracts.</p>

ON a decree in chancery, for the foreclosure of a mortgage, it was moved — that cost should be taxed for the petitioner.

Error from tb& judgment of a justice of tbe peace. Tbe judgment was ' entered up in these words:— “ Hartford county, ss.

<p>Under the plea of non est factum, the defendant may give anything in evidence which goes to the avoidance of the bond. Also, a writ directed to the sheriff may be served by his general or special deputy.</p> <p>Tin? declaration was •— That on' the 29th day of April, A. D. 1786, tho defendant was indebted to the treasurer of this state, in a sum of more than £1,000 lawful money, for state taxes, in his hands to collect of the inhabitants of the town of Southington, which he was unable to settle and pay; for which the town was finally responsible, and the selectmen immediately liable; and that the defendant, in order to indemnify and save harmless said town, from' said arrear of taxes, did make and execute to the plaintiff a certain bond obligatory.— Here the bond is. recited at large, which appears to be in common form, for £1,000 to the plaintiff, as treasurer of said town, and his successors in office.— Then follows the condition, in these words:— “ That whereas I, the said Bray, am now indebted on the state treasurer’s warrants, for taxes against the town of Southington (of which, by said town, I was appointed collector for sundry years past) in considerable sums, to the amount, perhaps, of £1,000 or more, as may appear by the treasurer’s books.— Now, if said Bray shall faithfully collect the remainder due on said rate bills, and pay the same to the state treasurer in a reasonable time, or in any other way satisfy the state treasurer, so as to indemnify and save the town harmless from any demand in the premises — then this obligation to be void,” etc.- — -The declaration then alleges a nonperformance on the part of the defendant.</p> <p>Hnder the plea of non est factum, Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Edwards, moyed for leave to introduce evidence of duress.— They relied upon the statute of this state, for regulating pleas and pleadings, by which it is enacted — “ That the general issue of not guilty, nil débet, no wrong or disseisin, or any other general plea proper to the action, whereby the whole declaration is put upon proof, according to- the nature of the case, may be made by the defendant; under which general plea, the defendant shall have liberty, upon trial of the case, and such general issue, to give his title in evidence, or any other matter in his defense or justification, as the nature of the action may be; excepting only a discharge from the plaintiff, or his accord, or some other special matter, whereby the defendant, by the act of the plaintiff, is saved or acquitted from tlie plaintiff’s demand in tbe declaration.”</p> <p>But,</p>

EbeoR from tbe Court of Common Pleas. Olcott and Caldwell-brought their action, in capacity of administrators, against tbe defendants, in tbe same capacity, on a note, given by their intestate, to tbe plaintiffs’ intestate.— Tbe defendants pleaded, 1. Full payment by tbe original promisor, to tbe original promisee. 2. Plene adnnnistravenmt.

Abel' Merrils made his last will and testament, devising and bequeathing all his estate, real and personal, to Mary his wife, except a small residuum to his brothers and sisters; and appointed his wife sole executrix. — ■ He died, and probate of his will was made the 3d day of April, 1776.— On the 20th day of September, 1786, motion was made to the Court of Probate for an appeal, and the following reasons shown, viz. “ Seth Merrils, of New Hartford, now appears in court, and…

DECLARATION on the following written promise, viz. “Hartford, 11th of April, 1777, I promise to pay Ezekiel Willaims, Esq. or order, whatsoever cost has arisen on account of my son, Gurdon Whitmore, being imprisoned in Hartford county goal, and his trial before the Superior Court in March last, whenever the just sum shall be ascertained (Colonel Seymour being now confined, under innoculation for the small-pox, and the files not to be obtained) the said Williams having now…

ActioN of book debt, for articles delivered tbe wife before marriage.

AotioN of disseisin.— Plea — That on the 15tb day of July, 1783, tbe defendant was indebted to tbe plaintiff, in tbe sum of £720 14s. lid. wbicb before tbat time bad been secured to tbe plaintiff by two notes of band, payable on demand: Tbat on said 15tb day of July,, 1783, tbe plaintiff required a further security for said debt; and tbe defendant, in order to obtain a further day of payment, did make and execute to tbe plaintiff, two deeds of tbe lands described in tbe…

Error from tbe Court of Common Pleas. Judgment was rendered against tbe defendants, in tbe capacity of administrators, execution issued, a nihil returned, and a seire facias brought to obtain execution de bonis propriis; to which tbe defendants pleaded — That, by order and direction of the Court of Probate, who granted to them administration, they published an advertisement, requesting all persons who had any claims of debt against said estate, of which they were…

The defendants were executors of Walter Hyde and 'Samuel Hyde, deceased, who were joint executors of Joseph Fitch, deceased. This action was upon a note, from the first testator to the plaintiff. Plea — non est factum. Tbe estate of Joseph Eitcb, deceased, was represented insolvent, and commissioners appointed to examine tbe claims.

This was an action upon a joint and several obligation, given by tbe defendant, and one William Campbell, on tbe 28tb day of February; 1785, for tbe payment of $16,839 in final settlement certificates, witbin six months from tbe date.

ActioN on bond of recognizance. Tbe case was, as disclosed in special pleadings, — • Tbat tbe wife of tbe plaintiff, while sole, instituted her suit against Samuel Post, for tbe maintenance of her bastard child, of which he was the putative father; and before a justice of the peace, said Samuel and the defendant entered a bond of recognizance to the then plaintiff, in the sum of £150 conditioned, — - “ That in case said Samuel should appear before the Court of Common Pleas,…

ActioN qui tam, for theft. This case was tried in the Court of Common Pleas, by jury, on the plea, not guilty, and a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff moved, and was admitted an appeal to this court. took exception to the legality of tire appeal. Lie contended — That the defendant having been once arraigned and acquitted of the crime, is thereby discharged from any liability to answer again of the same offense.

EeROR from the Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff being administrator on the estate of William Nicole, deceased, brought his action of debt, on bond, against the defendant. After having obtained oyer of the letters of administration, the defendant pleaded in abatement;— 1.

Tms was a petition in chancery. After a bearing, and tbe court bad formed tbeir opinion, and directed tbe clerk to minute it, that a bill in form might be drawn; but before tbe bill in form bad passed, tbe petitioner moved for leave to withdraw, which was denied.

AotioN of disseisin. General issue pleaded, and verdict for tbe plaintiff.— Tbe defendant then moved in arrest of judgment, and assigned for cause — That tbe jury founded their verdict on a deed to the plaintiff, signed by one Wright and Young, which was neither acknowledged nor recorded, as the law directs; therefore, was not legal evidence.

ActioN on the case, for a nonfeasance in the office of constable.

AotioN of book debt. Nil débet pleaded. — And verdict for the plaintiff. Mr. Parsons and Mr. Brainard, moved in arrest of judgment, because one of the exhibits in the cause (which contained material evidence) after being read on trial, was mislaid, and could not be found when the cause was committed to the jury; — therefore, was not before them while the cause was under consideration.

ActioN of book debt. The general issue pleaded — And verdict for the plaintiff.

<p>In Look debt, if tlie account shown on oyer, be less than £20 although the demand in the declaration may be more, no appeal lies.</p>

ActioN of disseisin. Yerdict for the defendant. moved in arrest of judgment, and principally for this cause: — That one of the jurors who tried the case is brother-in-law to the person who gave bond in said action for the defendant, and was thereby liable to pay the cost of suit, had the plaintiff recovered, the defendant being a bankrupt, and unable to pay any part.

ActioN of debt on bond, for £2,000 given by tbe deceased, Joseph Phelps, and Asabel Strong, with tbis condition:— “ That whereas, in consideration of £1,000 current money of tbe province of New York, tbe above bounden Joseph Phelps bath, by deed of mortgage, of even date herewith, conveyed to tbe abovesaid Waddell, one certain tract of land, lying in Hebron, containing about twelve hundred acres, as in said deed is described.— Now, if tbe above bounden Joseph Phelps, Asahel…

Joseph Case made bis last will, devising sundry tracts of land, and bequeathing’ sundry pecuniary legacies, chargeable upon his personal estate; and if that should prove insufficient, then upon certain reserved lands. The Court of Probate, which took cognizance of the will, finding there was not personal estate and reserved lands, sufficient to discharge the debts and pecuniary legacies, ordered part of the devised estate to be sold for that purpose.

IN this case, tbe original action was book debt, brought by the defendant in error, for articles delivered to Martha, wife of May, the plaintiff, before marriage.

A plea in abatement, that errors in law, and errors in fact, were joined in the same writ, was offered the second term, to a writ of error. It was objected, that the plea came too late. But,

AonoN — Book debt. Plea •— That the defendants were prosecuted by the selectmen of the town of Woodbury, in Litchfield county, for having put themselves under the protection. of tbe enemies .of tbe United States; and tbat their whole estate was confiscated, and adjudged to be forfeited, to tbe use and benefit of tbe state of Connecticut: Tbat an administrator, and commissioners, were appointed, to administer and settle tbeir estate, wbo duly advertised tbeir appointment in…

EeRoe from the Court of Common Pleas. Brown brought his action to the Court of Common Pleas, on a promissory note, dated 13th of April, A. D. 1778, payable in one year.

EeeoR from tbe judgment of a justice of tbe peace. Cornisb brought bis action against tbe plaintiff in error (sbe being executrix of tbe last will and testament of Isaac Eno, deceased) declaring — “ That be was a collector of state taxes, levied on tbe list of tbe polls and ratable estate of tbe inhabitants of tbe town of Symsbury, in tbe year 1761, and received from tbe treasurer of tbe state of Connecticut, a legal warrant, authorizing him to collect of tbe several…

<p>ActioN on a promissory note, dated the 25th of April, 1785. Plea,— That at the time of executing said note, the plaintiff was, and ever since hath been, an inhabitant of Newport, in the state of Rhode Island, and subject to the laws of said state; and said note was payable to the plaintiff in said Newport: And that the general assembly of said state, at their sessions in May, 1786, passed a certain statute law (wbicb law is recited at large in tbe plea) enacting, that tbe paper bills of said state should be 'a good and lawful tender, for tbe complete payment and final discharge of all debts, dues, or contracts, or that should after become due or contracted, of every kind and nature, within said state; and that if any creditor, or creditors, their lawful agent or attorney, should refuse to receive any of said bills, in discharge of any debt or demand, in that 'case, the debtor might make application to a justice of the Superior Court, or Court of Common Pleas, in the county where said debtor lives or resides, etc. prescribing the mode of proceeding: — And that the defendants did tender said bills, in pursuance of said law, and in manner and form there directed; by means whereof they were exonerated and discharged from said note, etc.</p> <p>Replication.— Reciting an explanatory act of the assembly of the state of Rhode Island, confining the benefits of the first act to citizens of that state; to which there was a demurrer — and judgment for the plaintiff.</p>

Eetsoe from tbe Court of Common Pleas. The defendant in error, being administrator on tbe estate of William Brattle, Esq. deceased, brought bis action of debt, against tbe plaintiff in error, declaring npon a bond given to tbe deceased, dated tbe 5tb day of June, 1758.

AcxioN of debt on judgment, instituted by writ of foreign attachment. The declaration set forth a judgment, with an averment, that no satisfaction had been made.— On demurrer, this declaration was adjudged to be ill: Eor,—

AotioN of book debt. Tbe plaintiffs were merebants of London, and tbe defendants described as belonging to this state. — ■ iYii debct pleaded — and a verdict for tbe plaintiffs.

<p>This was an action on bond, given by the deceased, conditioned — '“That Benjamin Clark, Jr. (who was appointed collector of public taxes, in the year 1183, for the town of Stonington) should faithfully collect all the state taxes committed to him for that purpose, and pay the same to the treasurer of Connecticut, according to tlie true intent and meaning of tlie several warrants that should be given Mm: And also, collect all tlie taxes levied by said town of Stoning-ton, in tlie year 1783, and pay the same into the treasury of said town, according to tlie direction of Ms warrants. And well and truly execute said office, according to law, and save the selectmen and inhabitants of said town of Stoning-ton, from all legal cost, trouble, and damage, that might or should arise on account of any misconduct, neglect, or deficiency of said Clark, in the execution of said office.”</p> <p>It was stated in the, pleadings — That the Court of Probate had limited a time for all claims of debt against the estate of the deceased, to be exhibited to the administrators; and that before the expiration of that term, Clark had failed to settle with the treasurer, agreeably to the direction of his warrants, though there had been no proceedings against the ■electmen, or inhabitants of the town, for the recovery of uy of the taxes which Clark had failed to collect and settle, 1 after the expiration of the term limited by the Court of róbate, for the settlement of York’s estate.</p> <p>On demurrer, the point was, whether a right of action .ad accrued upon this bond before the expiration of the time limited by the Court of Probate, for the creditors of the deceased to exMbit their claims to the defendants: —And it was held,</p>

This was an action against tbe sheriff of Hartford county, for tbe nonfeasance of one of bis deputies, in not levying and returning several writs of execution, in favor of tbe plaintiff. Tbe case was — That tbe late Mr. Hosmer having large demands against Kellogg, received of him, to collect and apply on account of said demands, certain promissory notes, from which arose three executions, which were tbe foundation of this suit.

This was a petition against tbe county of Litchfield, upon tbe statute regulating goals; by which it stands enacted — “ That if any person or persons, lawfully committed to any of the goals in this state (either in any civil or criminal case) shall break such goal, and make his or their escape, through, or by reason or means of the defect or insufficiency of such goal, the cost and charges occasioned, and expended thereby, and the damages sustained by the person or persons,…

Error from tbe Court of Common Pleas. Tbe plaintiffs brought their action of debt, counting upon a bond for £1,950 current money of New York, given by tbe defendant to tbe deceased, bearing date tbe 10th day of June, A. D. 17 61.

Eeror from tbe Court of Common Pleas, upon a bill of exceptions.

ActioN of trespass, vi et armis, for entering the plaintiff’s land, cutting and destroying his timber, etc. The issue was thus closed,' — -“which the defendant prays may be inquired of by the court:” — “And the plaintiff likewise.” — Upon this issue the cause went to trial by the jury, and after a verdict for the defendant, it was moved in arrest by the plaintiff, and among other things alleged,— that the) issue being closed to the court, the jury could not legally return…

ON an indictment, for passing a counterfeit loan-office certificate, tbe counsel for tbe prisoner objected to tbe witnesses testifying anything which tbe prisoner bad said to them confidentially, when endeavoring to persuade them to use their influence, that be might be improved as a witness against bis associates:— But,

The last term, Mr. Eeeve and Mr. Tracy, moved —- That a mandamus might issue against Jedidiah Strong, Esq. town clerk and register of… Held: or elections made, or such acts done, witliin the times fixed for that purpose, etc. To remedy which mischief,” etc. — • That this statute is fully descriptive of the object of a mandamus, and of the occasions on which it is to be used: That it is a writ supposed to be founded on necessity, and issuable only where no other remedy is…

Error from tbe judgment of a justice of tbe peace. Tbe original action was book debt, brought by Scovel against Butler and Porter, as being in partnership —- Tbe question on trial, was — whether there existed a partnership or not.

UpoN a motion to set aside a report of auditors — The exception was — That they had mistook in point-of fact; but an inquiry was denied. And,

This action was upon an implied promise, to repay to the plaintiff moneys received of him by the defendant.

Eeroe from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas, sitting as a court of chancery.

Error from the Court of Common Pleas. Janes brought bis action of trespass against Babcock, to the Court of Common Pleas, which was regularly entered in the docket of the court; — and on the first day of the term, at the calling of the actions, this case was three times publicly called, but neither party appeared; — so the action was called out of the docket. — Afterwards, on the second day of the term, at the opening in the afternoon, the plaintiff appeared, and moved for a…

EeROe from the judgment of a justice of the peace. Scripture brought his action before Mr. Holmes, a justice of the peace, declaring — That for a valuable consideration received and accepted by Scott, in full of all demands against Scripture, said Scott did agree and engage to relinquish and discharge him of every demand whatever; but that after-wards he brought his action of book debt before Jeremiah West, Esq. and recovered the whole of his demand, in direct violation of…

ERROR from the judgment of a justice of the peace, and from a subsequent one of the Common Pleas, dismissing an appeal.

This was an action of ejectment, to recover tbe possession of certain lands described in tbe declaration.

ActioN for a nonfeasance in the office of sheriff. The •declaration was ■— That the defendant received of the plaintiff, a certain writ of execution, which issued upon a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in the county of Litch-field, in favor of the plaintiff, against one Isaac; which execution bore date the 12th day of November, 1776, and was made returnable in sixty days: That the defendant received the same as sheriff, to execute according to law; which he wholly…

Error from the Court of Oommou Pleas. Barlow brought his actiou against Strong, by foreign attachment; who not being an inhabitant of this state, it was served upon one Jabez Barlow, as his attorney, factor, agent and trustee, to secure the effects of a debt due from him to Strong.— By the statute respecting absconding debtors, it is enacted — “ That such attorney, factor, agent, or trustee, upon his desire, shall be admitted to defend his principal in such suit, through the…

This was a scire facias, by tbe treasurer of New Haven county, upon a bond of recognizance, entered in a prosecution upon tbe statute against secret assaults.

<p>ActioN by the sheriff, upon a bail bond. The defendant pleaded — That after judgment was rendered against Ebenezer Dayton, the principal, and before the return day of the execution, Jonas Prentis, one of the plaintiff’s deputies, who had' said execution in his hands, to levy and collect, did see and converse with said Dayton, at his dwelling-house, within the plaintiffs bailiwick; and that said Pren-tis was within the dwelling-house of said Dayton, having entered peaceably through the outer door thereof, which was open, while said Dayton was in an inner room of said house, separated from said Prentis only by a common pine door, which was no otherwise locked or fastened than by a small staple or latch of iron, fastening on the inside: That said Dayton was within said inner room, wholly unarmed with any instrument or weapon of defense, except a small walking stick or cane, of about three feet in length, and one and half inch in circumference; and that said Prentis well knew the same, and whereabout in said house said Dayton was; but did not attempt to take him.— And at the same time Messrs. Augur and Chandler, two other of the plaintiff’s deputies, were present, and within said Dayton’s house, though neither the said Prentis, Augur, or Chandler, requested admittance into the room where said Dayton was; nor did they make any effort to open the door leading into said apartment, or otherways attempt to arrest the body of said Dayton; which it was in the power of said Prentis to have done.</p> <p>'Hie plaintiff replied — setting forth a variety of circumstances, tending to show the impracticability of entering the room and arresting Dayton, and the danger of attemnt-ing it; and concluded by traversing the allegation of the defendant, "that it was in the power of said Prentis to have arrested the body of said Dayton.”</p> <p>On demurrer to the replication, two grounds of defense were taken:—</p> <p>1. That the idea contained sufficient matter to exonerate the bail, notwithstanding what was set forth in the replication.</p> <p>2. That the declaration was insufficient; for that it appeared by the return of the execution set forth, that it was made within seven days after the execution issued; and that the bail could not be subjected, unless the officer had kept the execution till the return day, and made further search for the body of the debtor.</p> <p>But, on both points, judgment was for the plaintiff.</p>

Error from the Court of Common Pleas. The error complained of, was — the denial of an appeal.— The original action was brought by Fleming, as executor of M’Donald, deceased, upon a promissory note… Held: that the witnessing, so as to give validity to the will, as prescribed by the statute, is matter of form, and the proof of the execution is another thing.

This was an action against an administrator on an estate, represented and regularly proceeded with as insolvent; brought before an average struck, by a creditor whose, claim had been exhibited, and allowed by the commissioners.— It was brought on the ground of having discovered further estate not inventoried. The only question upon the pleadings was — whether, under those circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to this action.. — And,

Error from the Court of Common {Pleas. The original action was upon a promissory note, for £419 12s. 9d. New York currency, on interest, dated September 20, 1775,.in-dorsed as follows, viz.— “Received, May 14, 1779, of Mr. William Herron, £268 12s. 8d. New York currency, in continental bills, per loose receipt given him.— Samuel Broom & Co.” — Upon a default, and hearing in damages, on motion of the defendant, the damages were assessed at £353 14s. 4d. New York currency.

IN the trial of an action by tbe indorsee of a note, against the original promisee, who had indorsed his name on the back of the note, leaving a blank over it; the defendant offered witnesses to prove that it was done only for the purpose of a power of attorney; and that it was not the agreement or intent of the parties, that the defendant, should make himself responsible: But the witnesses were not admitted.— And,

Error from the judgment of a justice of the peace.. Roberts having been a collector of taxes, brought his action on the case against Eno, executrix of the last will of Eno, deceased, to recover the amount of taxes on the bills in his hands against the deceased. Upon demurrer to the declaration, it was objected, that no such suit could be maintained by a collector; — but the declaration was, by the justice adjudged sufficient; and the judgment here affirmed.

<p>This was an action of disseisin, to which the defendant pleaded — That in a former suit between the same parties, wherein, the present plaintiff was defendant, a Yerdict was found, and a judgment rendered against him, on his plea of title to the land now demanded; — and on demurrer, it tras held,</p>

<p>AotioN of debt, upon a bond, executed the 1st of May, 1786, conditioned as follows: — “"Whereas the said Hart, on the 19th day of March, 1784, executed two notes, jointly with said Bull, for £300 to M. Morse, for the sole duty of said Bull: — Now, if said Bull shall and doth pay up said notes, and fully indemnify and save harmless the said Hart, from all cost, damages, expense and trouble, on account of his being bound as aforesaid, then,” etc.— The breach assigned was — That the defendant had failed to pay the notes: Also, that soon after the notes were executed, they were assigned to Lawrence and Morris, in New York, who threatened to sue the plaintiff thereon; and to avoid an arrest, he forbore going to New York, to transact his necessary business there, as a merchant, to his damage £50 which the defendant had not paid.</p> <p>The case being thus stated by the pleadings, on demurrer to the replication, judgment was for the defendant.</p>

The declaration set forth — That one William Warner, of New Canaan, in the state of New York, was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of £54 14s. by promissory note: TM ’m tes, ^ te,-covery of said debt, when the defendant interposed, and proposed to become surety for the payment thereof, if the plaintiff would not commence his suit; and that the defendant, in consideration of the plaintiff’s forbearing to sue said Warner, then entered into an engagement, by him written,…

Eeeoe from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas, sitting as a Court of Chancery.

Eeror from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. Marcy exhibited his complaint qui tam, before a justice of the peace in the county of Windham, complaining of an mwslk «rnM Wife WCCES^ bi &$ctóc¡r<L — Tn© cause came before the Court of Common Pleas, and on demurrer to the complaint, judgment was for the plaintiff; —- and the judgment was affirmed.— Eor,

Erbob from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. The original action was assumpsit, in which the plaintiff declared — That at the defendant’s request, and promise to pay him the state’s bounty of £6 he entered and performed a tour of duty in the continental army: That the defendant informed him the bounty was in the hands of Ebenezer Backus, ready to be paid, and gave him an order, on or about the 30th day of August, 1780, as follows: — “Sir, pay Christopher Crandall his…

Error from a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas. The original action was on a note, for one hundred Spanish-milled dollars, with interest, dated 9th March, 1785. The defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction — That the parties, at the impetration of the writ, were both inhabitants of the state of Rhode Island; and that the defendant was only occasionally in this state at the time when the writ was served;— but the plea was overruled.

In tbis action, the plaintiff was described by the name of “ Henrietta Apthorp, of the island of Jamaica, in the West Indies, a minor, of the age of sixteen years, who- sues by Perez Morton, Esq. of Boston, in the county of Suffolk, and commonwealth of Massachusetts, her next friend and guardian.”— Then followed the declaration, in these words:— “ That to the plaintiff the defendant render the seisin and peaceable possession of a certain lot or parcel of land, with the…

This was an action of debt upon judgment, by writ of foreign attachment, with an averment of non est inventus; and that the defendant had absconded.

ActioN of trespass, upon tbe statute for cutting timber. Tbe general issue was pleaded — and a verdict for tbe defendant. Tbe plaintiff moved in arrest of judgment, assigning two-causes : — ■ 1. That several material papers exhibited on tbe trial, were suppressed by tbe defendant, and not committed to the jury when tbe cause was under consideration. 2. That tbe jury bad mistaken tbe law and tbe evidence in tbe case.

Ooit preferred bis petition to tbe Oourt of Common Pleas, against Fanning and others, administrators on tbe estate of Hurlbut, deceased, alleging — Tbat himself, tbe deceased, and one other, bad been partners in trade: Tbat since tbe death of said Hurlbut a demand had been exhibited against said partnership, which was tbe joint duty of said partners to bave discharged, and tbe petitioner was obliged to pay tbe whole thereof: — Therefore, praying for a decree tbat said…

DemiNG- brought bis action originally to tbe Court of Common Pleas, upon a promissory note, dated October tbe 8th, 1777, payable in lawful money, in one year from the date.— The pleadings, wbicb ended in a demurrer, stated — That' upon tbe 6th day of July, 1778, tbe defendant paid, in continental currency, tbe sum of £40 16s. wbicb was indorsed in these words: “Received on this note £40' 16s.” — And. tliat the defendant afterwards tendered in specie the remaining contents.—…

This was a writ of error, upon a judgment of the Mayor’s Court, in the city of Norwich.

This was an action of debt upon an administration bond, dated the 7th of July, 1778, conditioned — That the administrators named, should “the goods and estate of the deceased well and truly administer, according to law: And further, make a true account of their administration, at or before the 7th day of July, 1779; and the residue of said goods and estate, which should be found remaining upon said accounts (the same being first examined and allowed by the Court of Probate)…

This was an action of debt, upon a bail bond. The declaration was — “That on the 4th day of October, 1785, he, the plaintiff, had in his hands a lawful writ of attachment, in the name and favor of Charles Eldridge, against one William Elliot, of Stonington, for tbe sum of £45, lawful money, made returnable in tbe County Court, to be beld at Norwich, on tbe fourth Tuesday of November, 1785: Which writ tbe plaintiff was lawfully authorized and empowered to serve and return,…