Volume 11 — Connecticut Reports

This was an action of debt on a bond, in the penal sum of 2,000 dollars, dated March 5th, 1822, payable to the plaintiff as treasurer of… Held: that such was the intention. The bond, in that case, was conditioned “ that he would execute all the duties of his office and answer the malfeasance of his deputies.” City sheriffs are required to give bonds with sureties for the faithful discharge of their offices; but no provision is expressly made authorizing individuals to take…

This was an action on the case, stating, That the Smith Manufacturing Company being indebted to the plaintiffs, by book, the… Held: by the defendant, upon previous attachments, that the same might be disposed of in satisfaction of the plaintiffs’ execution ; that at the same time and place, said Matthew G. Warner made demand of said property of the defendant to be delivered to said Gates, that it might be disposed of in satisfaction of the plaintiffs’ execution ;…

This was a bill in chancery to obtain the possession of certain promissory notes and the securities attached to them.

This was an action of trover for 40 tons of Lackawanna coal. The cause was tried at an adjourned term of the superior court, at Haddam, in November, 1834, before Churchy J. On the 16th of October, 1832, the defendant, as constable, attached and took the coals mentioned in the declaration, at the suit of the East-Haddam Bank, against H. & S. Lee.

This was a bill in chancery for an injunction against waste. Held: that the creditor must have completed his title at law, by judgment and execution, before he can ques- tion the disposition of the debtor’s property. In Bennet v. Musgrave, 2 Ves. 51. and in a case before Lord Nottingham, cited in Balch v. Wastall, 1 P. Wins. 445. the same doctrine was declared.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit; to which the general issue was pleaded, with notice- 1. of the statute of limitations ; 2. a license, from the plaintiffs ; 3. a li- cence from the town of Middletown, alleged to be tenants in common with the plaintiffs of the locus in quo; 4. that by the votes of the proprietors of the common and undivided lands of Middletown and Chatham, passed in 1786, 1812, 1822, and at other meetings, the defendants, as inhabitants of…

This was an action on a promissory note, alleged to have been made by the defendants, G. B. Crandall and R. W. Roath, partners in business, in Norwich, under the name and firm of G. B. Crandall & Co., payable to Hyde, Cleveland & Co., and by them indorsed to the plaintiffs. Crandall was defaulted; and Roath appeared and pleaded Non as-sumpsit.

This was an action of debt on a bail bond, executed jointly, by Lebbeus W. Gardner, as principal, and Henry Gardner, as surety, to Thomas L. Fox, a constable, and by him assigned to Daniel F. Beebe, the plaintiff.

This was a bill in chancery. The material facts stated in the bill and found by the committee) were the following.

This was a scire-facias against the defendant, as the trustee and debtor of Elisha Congdon, an absent and absconding debtor; to which the general issue was pleaded.

This was an action of ejectment for one undivided ninth part of three pieces of land in Killingly, formerly owned and possessed by Parley Whittemore. The defendant pleaded the general issue; on which the cause was tried, at Brooklyn, October term, 1834, before Bissell, J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of a deed, in common form, executed by Knight Whit-temore, one of the nine children of Parley Whittemore.

This was a bill in chancery, seeking relief from a certain contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The facts stated in the bill and found by the committee, are the following. Held: by them, as commission merchants, subject to the ordinary charges in such cases.

This was a bill in chancery to obtain the benefit of certain bequests made to the plaintiff, by the will of her father Israel Mathewson. The bill stated the following- case.

IN ERROR. This was an action on the statute to prevent vexatious suits, brought by Cummins against Doane, alleging, That the defendant, on the 29th of October, 1833, in the name of Abby Coone, commenced against the plaintiff, without probable cause, with a malicious intent unjustly to vex the plaintiff, an action of book debt, by writ of attachment, returnable to the county court of Windham county, held at Brooklyn, on the second Tuesday of December, 1833, demanding sixty…

This was a bill in chancery for a foreclosure, brought in January, 1835. The bill stated, that the defendant, on the 17th of April, 1817, gave sundry promissory notes to Ruggles Gleason, deceased, payable to him, or his order, one in two years, and the others in five years, and, at the same time, executed a mortgage of certain lands, to secure the payment of these notes; that they had never been paid ; and that the mortgagor was dead.

IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery, brought originally, by Watson, against William T. Gager, Moses Smith, William W. Ellsworth and John Butler, bsfore the county court, for an injunction and other relief. The facts were these. The plaintiff having recovered a judgment and taken out execution against Gager, for 28 dollars, 68 cents, had caused him. to be committed to prison; and he was discharged, on taking the poor debtor’s oath.

This was a bill to foreclose the equity of redemption in certain lands, mortgaged, by Aaron Bissell, deceased, to the plaintiffs, to secure the payment of a promissory note for 12,443 dollars. Held: that he was such a representative ; and he was sued and made liable for not inventorying and appropriating to the creditors such estate. See also Booth v. Patrick, 8 Conn. Rep. 106. On the same principle, in Swift v. Thompson, 9 Conn.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, alleging, that the defendant, on the 19th of October, 1835, entered upon the plaintiff’s land, described in the declaration, and gathered, carried away and converted to his own use a great number, viz. twenty bushels, of_ the plaintiff’s pears, growing and being upon a certain pear-tree of the plaintiff standing upon the land described.

This was an action of assumpsit to recover tolls for the passing on the road of the plaintiffs of “ a certain travelling four-wheeled pleasure carriage and horses” from the 1st of Jan. uary, 1835, to the 28th of July, 1835.

IN ERROR. This was a complaint, preferred by George Francis and Henry Francis, against George S. Lewis, to two justices of the peace, alleging, that the complainants were carriage and harness makers and trimmers; that for more than two years last past, the defendant had been, and then was, an apprentice to the complainants, lawfully bound by indenture; that the defendant, at divers times between the 1st of May, 1835, and the 18th of March, 1836, wilfully and contemptuously…

This was an action of book debt; which was referred to auditors. They reported in favour of the defendants.

This was an action of book debt for goods sold and delivered, against Alanson Abbe and Anson Wildman. Abbe only appeared, and pleaded the general issue.

This was an action of assumpsit, founded on a promissory note of the following tenor: “On the third day of April next, we, or either of… Held: that the evidence was inadmissible. No other evidence having been offered, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon moved for a new trial, on account of the rejection of this evidence. 1. That the writing in question may be declared on against the defendant, and treated as a promissory note made by him.

This was an information against Samuel Gorham, presented by the state’s attorney, to the superior court in Litch-field county, stating, “ That said Gorham, on the 10th of April, 1835, at an electors’ meeting, duly holden at New-Milford, for the purpose of choosing representatives to represent that town in the then next General Assembly of this state, and the officers of this state which by law might have been chosen at said meeting, did, then and there, at said meeting, at…

was an action of ejectment, brought in December, 1833. The cause was tried at Litchfield, August term, 1835, be- fore Waite, J. The The plaintiff claimed title to the demanded premises, by vir- tue of the levy of an execution thereon in his favour against the defendant. The judgment on which this execution issued, was rendered, by default, in April, 1832; and the suit in which such judgment was rendered, was commenced by writ of attachment, served March 22, 1832.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, brought originally before a justice of the peace. The defendants pleaded title to the locus in quo in Mark Alcox, and that the alleged trespasses were committed by his order. The cause was thereupon removed to the county court; and from thence it was appealed, by the plaintiff, to the superior court.

This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received, by the defendants, for the plaintiff’s use; for money paid, laid out and expended, by the plaintiff, for the use of the defendants; and for money due from the defendants to the plaintiff, and unpaid. The object of the suit was to recover back a sum of money, which had been collected, by the defendants from the plaintiff, by virtue of a tax warrant against him.

This was an action on a bond, executed by Warham Harvey, as principal, and John Adam, as surety, to Ozias Seymour Esq., sheriff of Litchfield county ; the condition of which bond was, that said Harvey being confined in Litchfield county gaol, by virtue of an execution, amounting to 63 dollars, 16 cents, in favour of James C. Wadsworth against him, should keep himself within said prison, and not depart therefrom, until lawfully released.

This was an action of trover for certain articles of personal property. The cause was tried at Litchfield, August term, 1835, before Waite, J. William Moore was, oh the 18th of June, 1832, the owner of the property specified in the declaration. He died on the 4th of June, 1833 ; and the plaintiff was appointed administrator upon his estate.

IN ERROR. This was an action of book debt; which was referred to auditors.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Aner Wooden, against the executor of Levi Cowles, deceased, on a promissory note, given by Cowles, in his life-time, to the plaintiff.

This was an action of assumpsit, in several counts; one for money had and received; one for work and labour : one for goods sold and delivered ; and another for money paid, laid out and expended.

This was an action on the case for the obstruction of a water-course, brought in April, 1834.

IN ERROR. This was an action brought by Jesse Williams, a constable, against Daniel Andrews, upon a receipt, stating, that the plaintiff had an execution in favour of Nathaniel Snell against Augustus Andrews, which he levied on “ one new two-horse wagon and two new harnesses,” the estate of the debtor, and posted them “ on the public sign-post in Winchester Old Society, so called, in the town of Winchester, that being the society in which said goods were taken, by virtue of…

This was an action of ejectment for a tract of land in the Easterly part of the town of Norfolk, containing about twenty-four acres.

This was a bill for the foreclosure of two pieces of land. On the 14th of September, 1818, Clark Hatch and two others, for the consideration of 2000 dollars, received of David Geer, conveyed to him and his wife Cynthia Geer, one of the pieces of land described in the bill. David Geer, at the same time, was the sole owner of the other piece.

This was an action on a promissory note, payable to the plaintiff, made by Ammon B. Blackman, (the defendant,) Ebenezer Blackman and… Held: presented it to the commissioners for allowance, by whom it was allowed in full; that the report of commissioners allowing such claim, was accepted and approved, by the court of probate ; that after all the claims against said estate had been allowed and the amount ascertained, there remained in the hands of the executors a large sum…

due. This was an action of account. For an abstract of the de- claration and pleadings, see 10 Conn. Rep. 168, 9. A new trial having been refused, by the advice of this court, in 1834, auditors were subsequently appointed, by the superior court, who made their report in favour of the plaintiff, for 98 dollars, 32 cents. To the acceptance of this report the defendant remonstrated, on the following grounds: 1.

This was a bill in chancery to obtain the legal title to real estate. The bill stated the following case. On the 20th of November, 1822, Amos Shepard and George Shepard were justly indebted to the plaintiff, as executor of Moses Botsford, deceased, in the sum of 917 dollars, 19 cents, for so much money, by the plaintiff, as such executor, before that time paid, laid out and expended to and for their use, and at their special instance and request.

IN ERROR. This was a bill in chancery to redeem mortgaged premises, and for an account of rents and profits.

in ERROR. This was a petition for a highway, brought by Husled and others against the town of Greenwich. The petition was originally addressed to the county court of Fairfield county, “ sitting as a court of chanceryand was returned to that court, at its term in November, 1834.

This was an action on the endorsement of a promissory note. The parties were thus described in the writ: “ Jarvis Brush of the city of Brooklyn, in the county of Kings, in the state of New-York, and Edward Cook, of the city of New-York, partners and merchants in company, by the name and firm of Brush Cook, plaintiffs, against John Scribner, of the city of New-York, defendant.” The note in question was made in the city of New-York, on the 4th of December, 1833, by Abraham S.…

IN ERROR. This was an information to the county court of Fairfield county, against George Arden, for perjury.

This was a petition for a new trial. From the statements set forth in the petition, it appears, that on the 26th day of May, I S31, the petitioners and one Thomas Vandola were bound over to the superior court, then next to be holden in the county of Fairfield, on the charge of burglary : That having failed to procure bonds for their appearance, they were committed to the gaol in Fairfield, by virtue of a mittimus, issued by Stephen Smith, Esq., the justice before whom the…

Levi Taylor assigned his property for the benefit of his creditors, pursuant to the statute. The court of probate for the district of Norwalk appointed commissioners on his estate, who made their report of the sums due to the several creditors, and returned it to the court, who received it and ordered it to be recorded.

IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit on a promise to account.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Nathaniel Cook and Benjamin T. Cook, executors of Ephraim Cook, deceased, against Mindwell Mix, on a promissory note, given by her, to said Ephraim Cook, as administrator of the estate of Joseph Hull, deceased. The note was for fifty dollars, dated June 1st, 1820, and payable in six months from the date.

This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant as a party liable on a promissory note. There were six counts in the declaration. In the first, the plaintiffs declared, That the defendant, in and by a certain writing or note, under his hand, by him well executed, dated the 1st day of November, 1833, promised the plaintiffs, to pay to them, or order, for value received, the sum of 374 dollars, 60 cents, at the Fulton Bank in New- York, six months after date.

This was an action of trespass for taking and detaining a horse and gig. The cause was tried at New-Haven, October term, 1835, before Williams, Ch. J. The plaintiffs claimed to have proved the taking and detention of the property. The defendants were grand-jurors of the town of Milford; and claimed, that whatever was done by them, was done in that capacity.

IN ERROR. This was an action brought by Ferry and Ward against Robinson and Hall, on a promissory note. The defendants pleaded the general issue and a special plea, on which issues were joined.

This was an action of trespass, for forcibly removing, on the 1st of June, 1833, the posts and frame of the turnpike gate on the plaintiffs’ road in Woodbridge.

IN ERROR. This was an action of book debt, brought by Hall against Ives, and tried before the county court, on the general issue, closed to the court. On the trial, the defendant offered in evidence his book account, among the items of which was one for a horse sold to the plaintiff, and charged to him, at the sum of 33 dollars, 67 cents.

This was an action of trespass, in two counts; the first, alleging an arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiffs’ body; and the second, the taking and conversion of a horse, wagon and harness, the property of the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of justification. The cause was tried at New-.Haven, January term, 1836, before Waite. J. The plaintiff proved the acts complained of in this declaration.

IN ERROR. This was an action of trespass, brought by Zerah Blakeslee against Hiram Rowe, the object of which was, to recover of the defendant the sum of 75 cents, a tax paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, as the collector of taxes for the NorthWest school district in the town and society of East-Haven, by virtue of a warrant directed to the defendant, for the purpose of collecting such tax.

This was an action against the defendant, as indorser of a promissory note, made by James C. Bates, payable to the defendant, or order,… Held: that where it was the usage of the plaintiffs (bankers) to strike a balance of their accounts at the end of each quarter, and send the balance, when struck, to the defendant, the practice of the parties brought it to the case of a fresh agreement, at the beginning of each quarter, to lend the sum then due, and consequently, was not…

This was an action of assumpsit for work and labour done, and materials furnished; by the plaintiff, at the request of the defendants, in and upon and for the repair of a public highway, in the town of East-Haddam, which it was the duty of the town to maintain and keep in good repair.

This was an action of ejectment; tried at Middletown, February term, 1835, before Bissell, J. The plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of two mortgage deeds, purporting to have been executed by the defendant to the plaintiffs, conditioned for the payment of two notes, one for 1500 dollars, the other for 1000 dollars.

In ERROR. This was an action oftrespass quare clausum fregit, and for taking and carrying away manure, brought by Nathan Parsons and Seth R. Strong against Heth F. Camp and Miles Merwin, jr., before a justice of the peace, and appealed to the county court of Middlesex county.

This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, by which the defendants jointly and severally promised to pay the plaintiff, or bearer, on demand, for value received, the sum of 500 dollars, with interest. Taylor was defaulted ; and Avery, the other defendant, pleaded non assumpsit.

IN ERROR. This was an information, filed by the attorney for the state, in the county court of New-London county, against William Hyde, for a nuisance, in erecting on… Held: that the offence might be prosecuted at common law. State v. Enos, Kirb. 21. The State v. Lockwood, Kirb. 106. The State v. Danforth, 3 Conn. Rep. 112. The State v. Wilson, 2 Root 62. It is certainly well settled, that you may prosecute, for many offences, at common law or on the statute. 2 Sw. Dig. 385.

This was an action of debt on judgment. The defendant pleaded in bar, that on the judgment mentioned in the declaration a lawful… Held: that no averment of facts showing why a new execution should be had, was necessary, this objection vanishes. It is admitted in Williams v. Cable, above cited, that debt would lie. 7 Conn. Rep. 124. 2. That the declaration being good, the plea is not a sufficient answer to it. The plea must be taken most strongly against the pleader.

This was an action of ejectment; tried at Norwich, March term, 1836, before Huntington, J. The demanded premises were formerly the property of James Rogers, deceased, who, by his last will, duly proved and established, devised the same to his son, Solomon Rogers, as follows : “ To be to him during his natural life ; and at his decease, my will is, that the same shall go to the issue of his body, lawfully begotten, or to be begotten, to be equally divided among them, to be to…

IN ERROR. This was an action of debt on a bond, executed by Charles Bolles, since deceased, and William Sterne, (the defendant,) to Moses Warren. Esq., judge of probate, for the payment of 1000 dollars, to said judge or his successor in office.

This was a bill in chancery, brought to the superior court, seeking such relief as the court, upon the facts stated and proved, should deem proper. In January, 1822, the plaintiff mortgaged his home farm, and another tract of land, called the Purple lot, to Roger and Solomon Taintor, to secure a note due from him to them.

IN ERROR. This was a petition for a highway, brought by Packer and others against Nathaniel French, one of the principal inhabitants of the town of Plainfield, and one of the select-men of that town, and the rest of the inhabitants of said town.

IN ERROR. This was an action brought by Fuller against Whipple, for a vexatious suit. The declaration comprised two counts.