Volume 12 — Connecticut Reports

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit; tried at Hartford, January term 1837, before Bissell, J. On the trial, the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the locus in quo. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff, and claimed that the title was in Seth Cowles, under whom tfoev entered, and did the acts complained of. The plaintiff and Seth Cowles were adjoining proprietors ; and the only point in dispute regarded the place of the dividing line.

IN ERROR. This was an action of debt, brought by the Union Company, against ¡Samuel and William Kellogg, to recover of them, as owners of the brig Alexander, the toll authorized by the charter of the company for the passing of that vessel up Connecticut river from Middletoivn or below to Hartford, drawing more than six feet of water.

This was an action of debt on a bond, given by Esther Dodd and John Russ, administrators of the estate of John Dodd, jun. deceased, and Joseph Pratt and Nathaniel Patten, their sureties, dated the 4th of April, 1809.

This was a writ of habeas corpus, before Ch. J. Williams, on the application of Nancy Jackson, by her next friend James Mars, alleging, that she then was, and for a long time had been, illegally confined, by James /S'. Bulloch, then residing in Hartford.

This was an action of assumpsit for work and labour; to which the defendants pleaded the general issue. The cause was tried at Litchfield, Avgust term, 1836, before Williams, Ch. J. The plaintiff claimed to recover of the defendants as partners ; and to prove the partnership, he exhibited in evidence the following agreement: “ Articles of agreement by and between Seth Marshall, Theron Rockwell, George O. Jarvis and Giles II.

IN ERROR. This was a petition to the county court, for a highway, from the road, which passed the dwelling-house of Jonathan Coe, in Winchester, at a point between his dwelling-house and the Greenwoods turnpike road, running in a North-westerly direction, through the valley, to the South line of Colebrook ; thence up the valley, to the Waterbary-river turnpike road, at some point between the dwelling-house of John Corbin and Enos North in Colebrook.

This was an information against Alpha Rowley and Chauncey Baldwin for a conspiracy to cheat and defraud Benjamin Tucker, jun. and Dudley Case, filed, by the state’s attorney, at the term of the superior court for Litchfield county, in August, 1836.

This was a bill in chancery for an injunction, and such other relief as was adapted to the nature of the case. Held: by said society, according to the terms and conditions, and for the purposes, specified in said subscription paper or constitution; that from the time the society received said fund into their possession and controul, they have, in good faith, kept the same, and strictly applied the use thereof according to the terms and provisions…

<p>In an action to recover the price of property sold under n special agreement, which proves inferior in quality to that contracted for, an allowance to the defendant may be made, in the assessment of damages, of such an amount as constitutes the difference between the price agreed upon and the value of the property sold.</p> <p>But the defendant, in such action, is not entitled to an allowance in reduction of damages beyond such difference, on the ground that the property con. tracted for, at the stipulated time and place of delivery, was of greater value than the price agreed upon.</p>

<p>Where the defendant in an action on a promissory note, in the name of the promisee, filed amotion, stating, that he believed the note had been sold to H., an attorney and counsellor at law in this state, praying the court to in. quire into the truth of the facts alleged, and require H. to disclose on oath; it was held, that as it was not alleged, that H. was the attorney in this suit, nor that the plaintiff was a resident without this state, the prayer for a dis. closure might be rejected as surplusage, and then the motion would stand upon the prayer for an inquiry into the truth of the facts ; and the proper mode of conducting that inquiry, is, by common law evidence.</p> <p>Where the defendant, in the trial of such motion, offered in evidence the de. position of the plaintiff, voluntarily given; it was held, that such deposi. tion was admissible, and the defendant was entitled to the benefit of it as testimony under oath, and not merely as an admission in writing.</p> <p>Where the testimony in such deposition, regarded certain notes, dated the 6th of March, while the note in suit was dated April 5th ; it was held, that this discrepancy affected the weight of evidence only, and did not ren. der the deposition inadmissible, as being irrelevant.</p>

IN ERROR. This was an appeal from an order or decree of the court of probate for the district of Norwalk, accepting the report’of commissioners upon the estate of Levi Taylor, an insolvent debtor, who had assigned his property for the benefit of his creditors, pursuant to the statute. [See 11 Conn.

IN ERROR. This was a petition returnable to the county court of Fair-field county, November term, 1834, brought by Birch and others against the towns of Huntington and Monroe, praying for alterations in certain highways in those towns.

This was an action of trespass de bonis asportaiis ; tried at Fairfield, April term, 1837, before Williams, Ch. J. The defendant claimed to have taken the goods mentioned in the declaration, as deputy sheriff, by virtue of a writ of attachment in favour of John C. Morrison against Sharp dp Whitcomb; and the principal question, on the trial, was, whether the goods were the property of the plaintiff, or of Sharp Whitcomb.

This was an action of debt on book against Hannah Hoyt and James S. Hoyt, (the latter having died since the commencement of this suit,) as administrators on the estate of iShadrach Hoyt, deceased. The defendants having prayed oyer of the account, pleaded, first, the general issue; and upon this issue the jury returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff.

IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the town of Newtown against the town of New-Haven, to recover money, expended by the plaintiffs, for the support of a pauper.

This was an action of ejectment, brought by John J. Leeds against Cary Weeds and one Wessels. The cause was tried, on the general issue, at Fairfield, April term, 1837, before Williams, Ch. J. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in question, in the following manner.

IN ERROR. This was an action on two promissory notes, made by Gideon Platt, deceased, for 25 dollars each, dated the 19th of September, 1814, payable, one in three and the other in four years from the 1st of December, 1814. The defendant, who was the administrator of Gideon Platt, pleaded in bar the following facts.

The first of these was a bill in chancery, followed by a supplemental bill, brought by Abijah Osborn and David W. Prescott, against William H. Carr, Amasa Goodyear, Stephen Bateman, Charles Perkins and Alvin Sperry, seeking a foreclosure of mortgaged premises; to which Carr filed his answer, but the other defendants made no answer.

This was an action of assumpsit against the defendant, as executor of Elizabeth S. Fowler, deceased, for the recovery of 80 dollars, for the use and occupation of a dwelling-house, by her, in the city of New-Haven. The defendant pleaded, That he was not, and never had been, the executor of said Elizabeth 8. Fowler, deceased, nor ever administered any of the goods and chattels which were hers, at the time of her death.

This was an action on the case for a malicious arrest, under a search-warrant; tried at New-Haven, January term, 1837, before Church, J. On the trial, the plaintiff introduced the original complaint and search-warrant set forth in the declaration, accompanied with satisfactory parol proof, that the warrant was issued and served, at the instigation and by the procurement of the defendant ; that the body of the plaintiff was arrested thereon ; and that he was tried, and…

This was an action of assumpsit against the defendants, as the makers of a promissory note.

IN ERROR. This was an action of trespass vi et armis and de bonis asportatis, brought by Hannah Eves, against Anson T. Colt and Silas Mix, before the city court of the city of New-Haven. The defendants pleaded, severally, the general issue, with notice of special matter in justification. The cause was tried before that court, October term, 1836, when the plaintiff obtained a verdict against both the defendants.

This was an action for a libel upon the plaintiff, published in a newspaper, called “ The Daily Herald,” June 12th, 1834. Held: for two years prior to the 12th day of June, 1834, and continued to hold the same office up to the 20th day of June, 1834, and to which said office of justice of the peace, the plaintiff had not been re-appointed, by the General Assembly, at its annual session in May, 1834, but not in consequence of any mal-practice or misconduct of…

This was ail action of assumpsit for the wharfage of goods ; tried at New-Haven, January term, ] 837, before Church, J, In December, 1731, after the failure of a previous attempt, the proprietors of undivided lands in the town of New-Haven, at a legal meeting, granted to so many of such proprietors as should be inclined to subscribe for the purpose a certain sum of money, full and free liberty to erect, set up and maintain a wharf on the flats, thirty feet wide, of such…

This was an action of assumpsit for money had and received; tried at Haddam, September term, 1836, before Church, J. On the 26th of December, 1S31, Noah Scovil, of the city* of London, in the kingdom of Great-Britain, drew a bill of exchange of that date, in favour of Amos Scovil, the defendant, for 610 dollars, payable seven months from its date, upon Cheavens Sp Burdett, merchants, in the city of New-York.

This was a bill in chancery for an injunction against the defendants. On the 8th of December, 1836, the time of filing the plaintiffs’ bill, they, as tenants in common with Hezekiah Scovil, one of the defendants, were owners of a certain piece of land in.fche town of Haddam, containing about one acre, and of a ⅞⅛ or manufactory and water privilege thereon ; the plaintiffs cubing two thirds and Scovil one third.

This was an action of ejectment; tried at New-London, September term, 1836, before Bissell, J. The demanded premises were formerly the property of Vetch Williams, deceased.

This was a writ of replevin, commanding the officer to cause to be replevied to the plaintiffs one undivided eighth part of the ship Allas, lying in the harbour of New-London, together with her sails, rigging, cable and anchors, and cargo of oil and whalebone, attached at the suit of William, Ladd, the present defendant, against Shubael Gallup, and by said Ladd unjustly detained.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit; tried at New London, September term, 1836, before Bisscll, J. The land described in the declaration included a piece of land on the North side of Alewife brook, used as a saw-mill pond. The acts of trespass complained of, were the taking of earth and stones from the bottom and margin of the mill-pond for repairing the dam connected with it.

This was an action on the case, for an unlawful interference, by the defendants, in the collection of a note not negotiable, made by Peter Avery, payable to the defendants, and by them assigned, for a valuable consideration, to the plaintiff.

This was an action on a bond, given by the defendants, as executors of the will of Asa Spalding, Esq., deceased, to the judge of probate, predecessor of the plaintiff in office. The defendants set out the condition, which was in the form prescribed by statute, and pleaded performance generally.

This was an action of assumpsit for tolls; tried at Norwich, March term, 1837, before Williams, Ch. J. At the session of the General Assembly, in October, 1795, Joshua Lalhrop and others, on a petition preferred by them, for liberty to establish turnpikes on the stage road from the courthouse in Norwich to the court-house in Hartford, through the towns of Franklin, Lebanon, part of Hebron, Coventry, Bolton and East-Harlford, and to collect tolls from trav-ellers, to be…

This was an action of ejectment for two tracts of land in North-Stonington. Held: as they had good right to do. To this plea the plaintiff demurred specially, assigning sundry causes of demurrer. The case was then reserved for the advice of this court. contended, I. That a plea of estoppel to an action of ejectment is not allowable, as the defendant cannot give colour of title to the plaintiff.

' This was an action of assumpsit on an award of arbitrators, brought by Asa Hutchins, “ as conservator legally appointed of Benjamin Johnson, a distracted person,” against Alfred Johnson. The declaration contained two counts.

This was an action of trespass for false imprisonment; tried at Brooklyn, January term, 1837, before Waite, J. The plaintiff claimed and offered evidence to prove, that the defendant, being a justice of the peace of the state of Rhode-Island, issued a writ against the plaintiff, upon a promissory note for the sum of five dollars, payable to William Smith, or bearer, in the name of one Hawkins, as the bearer, returnable before the defendant, as such justice of the peace, at…

This was a scire-facias in a process of foreign attachment, against Asa L. Latham ; tried at Brooklyn, January term, 1837, before Waite., J. The original writ, a copy of which was left in service with the defendant, was against Cyrus L,atham, the father of the defendant.

IN ERROR. This was a scire-f acias in a process of foreign attachment against the county of Hartford. The original action was against James Chamberlin, describing him as an absent and absconding debtor, and averring that the county of Hartford was his debtor and trustee. A copy was left in service with Nathaniel Goodwin, Esq. as treasurer of the county.

This was an action on the case, to recover damages for the loss of 52 bales of cotton, belonging to the plaintiffs, shipped on board the sloop Maria, owned by the defendants, at New-York, to be transported thence to Norwich, in this state.

This was an action of assumpsit, alleging that the defendant, who conducted business at Wareham, Mass, under the name of the “ Wareham Iron Company,” promised to deliver to the plaintiffs a quantity of rods, shapes and band iron, in March, 1836.

IN ERROR. This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought originally, by Isaac Merrills, against The West School District in the School… Held: December 13th, 1832. Voted, that we will and do hereby raise a tax of five cents and five mills on the dollar; said tax to be made out on the assessment list of 1831, for defraying the expenses of the district, as reported by our committee, and approved of, by vote of the district.” On this vote a tax of 8 dollars, 8 cents, was…

This was an action for fraud in the sale of a patent right; tried at Hartford, February term, 1838, before Williams, Ch. J. The plaintiff claimed to have proved the following facts. Being desirous of purchasing one of Tyler’s threshing machines, for his farm in New-Hampshire, he applied to the defendant, who claimed to have the patent right, to purchase it; but he declined selling single machines, but offered him the right for the state of Neu>-Hampshire.

This was a bill in chancery for an injunction to restrain further proceedings in the collection of an execution in favour of Morse, one of the defendants, against the plaintiff. In September, 1837, Morse recovered judgment against Andrews, before the superior court, on which the execution mentioned in the plaintiff’s bill, was taken out.

IN ERROR. This was a complaint against Joseph Goddard, exhibited, by a tything-man, to Mimas Ives, Esq., a justice of the peace, for a breach of Sabbath. The delinquent, being brought before the justice, pleaded not guilty, putting himself upon the jury for trial; and he thereupon moved, that a jury be ordered and empannelled to try the cause. This was refused; and after a trial before the justice alone, he was convicted of the offence charged in the complaint.

This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration stated, That on the 24th of June, 1834, in consideration that the plaintiff, at the special instance and request of the defendants, would labour for the defendants in their woollen manufactory in Norfolk, in the business of spinning, assorting and carding wool, as the defendants might direct, from time to time, during the term of one year then to commence, they, the defendants, promised the plaintiff to pay to him, for said…

This was anaction of trespass quare clausumfregit; tried, on the general issue with notice, at Litchfield, February term, 1838, before Church, J. It was admitted that the plaintiffs were owners of the land described in the declaration, deriving their title from Hiram Bennett, by deed dated April 6th, 1835 ; and that the acts which they complained of, were committed by the defendants.

This was an action of trover for saw-mill logs ; tried at Litchfield, February term, 1838, before Church, J. The logs in question were taken and sold, by the defendant, as constable, on an execution in favour of M. These logs grew upon a certain piece of land, formerly the property of Daniel Baldwin, deceased, which, under his last will and testament, had been distributed to Lucia Baldwin, his daughter, and the wife of Birdsey Baldwin ; and they had been cut and carried away…

This was an information for the burning of a shop, in two counts.

IN ERROR. This was an action of book debt, brought by Fox against Hoyt. The defendant was summoned to appear before Sands Adams, Esq. justice of the peace, at the house of Nathan Gregory, in Stamford, on the 13th day of January, 1838, at 1 o’clock, P. M., then and there to answer unto Richard Fox, &c. On the 20th of January, 1838, justice Adams rendered a judgment for the plaintiff, the record of which is as follows : — “ Fairfield county, ss. Stamford, January 20th, 1838.

This was an action of assumpsit to recover the amount of certain assessments upon ten shares of the stock of this company, held by the defendant as an original subscriber.

This case differs from the preceding one of the same plaintiffs against Kennedy, in this particular only, that it isa suit brought against the defendants as assignees or purchasers of stock, who have received certificates of proprietorship from the plaintiffs, and have become stockholders in the company ; and it was instituted to recover instalments required to be paid on their shares, after they became stockholders.

IN ERROR. This was a summary process under our statute, (lit. 53. c. 3.) brought, in June, 1837, by Wharton and wife against Du Bouchet, before Horace Potter Esq., justice of the peace, and a jury, to recover the possession of cevtain lands and the buildings thereon, called Lyonville.

This was an action of debt, brought by Amos Townsend, jun., as treasurer of the city of New-Haven, to recover of the defendant the penalty or forfeiture incurred by a violation,of the fire laws. There were three counts in the declaration.

This was an action on a promissory note, for 134 dollars, dated the 26th of May, 1829. There were also counts in in-debitatus assumpsit, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded infancy at the making- of the note; and the plaintiff replied a ratification, by the defendant, after he became of full age ; on which issue was joined.

This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained three counts.

This was an action on a promissory note, for 150 dollars, dated the 28th of October, 1834, and payable two years after date. The cause was tried, on the general issue, at New-Haven, January term, 1838. The plaintiffs reside in the state of Maine ; and the defendant in the town of Woodbridge, in this state.

This was an action of trespass, in two counts. The first alleged, That on the 8th of December, 1835, the plaintiff was in possession of a blacksmith’s shop in Waterbury; that the defendants, not regarding the statute in such case provided, on said day, with force and arms, and with strong hand, and contrary to the mind and will of the plaintiff, broke and enter-_ed said shop, and put out the plaintiff therefrom, and kept him out, for the space of two months; that on the 6th…

Waite, J. Two questions are presented in this case, for the consideration of the court. One is, whether the declaration is sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to judgment in his favour, after verdict. The other is, whether the judge on the circuit decided correctly the several questions stated in the motion, respecting the admissibility of evidence. 1.