Volume 2 — Connecticut Reports

THIS was an action of ejectment for several pieces of land. The ouster was laid on the 2d of September 1815. The action was commenced on the 25th of the same month. The cause was tried at Litcfifield, August term 1816, before Trumbull, Smith and Baldwin, Js. On the trial, the plaintiffs claimed title to the demanded premises by virtue of three mortgage deeds from the defendant.

THIS was an action of assumpsit against the town of Marlborough, for support furnished for Charlotte Goff', a pauper. The only question was, whether her settlement Mas in the town of Marlborough. In the superior court, the facts were agreed to by the parties, and reserved for the consideration of the nine Judges. Ruth Beach, mother of the pauper, was settled in Taun-ton in Massachusetts. In June, 1796, she was married to William Goff) whose settlement was then in Marlborough.

THIS w as an action of assumpsit for the support, of Sybil Skinner, a pauper. The case was as follows. Sybil Skinner is a minor, about nineteen years of age. Her father, Oliver Skinner, always was, ami still is, an inhabitant of Hebron: and the pauper and bis other children were horn there.

THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note of the following tenor : “ Six months after date, I promise to pay Zebulon Frost, or order, two hundred and fifty-one dollars, value received, with interest. “ City Hartford, 19th May, 1814. “ For Benjamin Wood, “ Mner M. Warriner.” The plaintiff claimed, that the note was given for money borrowed for the defendant’s use.

THIS was a bill in chancery to redeem mortgaged premises. ,. ,, ,,, „ , . ,, lhc case was as lollows. hururxer Berdan. jim., on the lGth of February 17(53, mortgaged the premises to David Ecekman and Jlbraiiam hymen, of the city of Mu'-Fork, to secure to them the payment of -128/. 1⅛. (id., Mw-Vork cur-miey, on the 20th of .March next ensuing. Benton remained in possession’.mill his death, which took ¡dace on the 9th of February 17 0-1.

IN ERROR. THIS was an information against Newell, for striking and emitting bills, to be used as a medium of trade, contrary to the statute. The offence was alleged to have been committed in September, 1814. The information was exhibited to a justice of the peace, and a warrant issued, in August, 1815. In May, 1816, the defendant was arrested, examined, and a recognizance taken for his appearance at the jjext superior court.

THIS was an action of slander. In one of the counts, the words were charged as follows: “ That the defendant uttered and published, in the hearing of sundry citizens of this state, of and concerning the plaintiff, the following false, scandalous and defamatory words, viz. Deacon, Chapman (meaning the plaintiff) is guilty of the crime of perjury: he has taken a false oath, and lean prove it.

IN ERROR. THIS was an appeal from a decree of the court of pro-hate for the district of Norwich, approving and ordering to be recorded the will of Samuel Mott, deceased. The will contained devises of the testator’s real estate, and was duly made and attested on the 4th day of June 1812.

THIS was an action on a promissory note of the following icnour: “ Lisbon, December 6th, 1815. For value received, we jointly and severally promise “ Samuel Jlvery and Son, in sixty days from date, seven “ hundred thirty-four dollars, seventy-six cents, in cotton 'e yarn, at ten per cent, below the wholesale factory prices, to iS be delivered at the Lisbon Cotton-Factory store. “ Josiah Rose, as Agt.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration stated, that from the 6th of September, 1809, until the 15th of October, 1810, the plaintiffs were sole owners of the ship Jinn, of New-York, whereof Hezekiah Smith was master, appointed by the plaintiffs, and their agent; and that on the 6th of September, 1809, at Hamburgh, said ship then lying at Tonningen, the plaintiffs, by their said agent and master of said ship, entered into a charter-party with James Neville and others.

THIS was an action of ejectment brought to recover the seisin and possession of a lot of land and a dwelling-house ⅛ Huntington. The action was commenced in Jlpril, 1815. The cause was tried at Danbury, September term 1816, before Trumbull, Smith and Baldwin, Js.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action, in common form, on a promissory note, executed jointly by Edward Tryon and Richard, Try* on, on the 18th of June 1813, for 152 dollars 22 cents# payable in one year from date, with interest.

THIS was an action against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, made by one ScovU, dated the 21 si day of February 1815, and payable ninety days after date. The cause was tried at Middletown, July term 1816, before Swift, Ch. J. and Goddard and Hosmer, Js.

THIS was an action on a promissory note for 350 dollars, The canse ivas tried at Mew-Haven, August term 1816, before Swift, Ch. J. ant! Goddard and Hosmer, Js. Held: that no recovery can be had for money paid by (he plaintiff for the defendant, or received by :hc defendant for the plaintiff, on an illegal transaction. Steers v. Lashicy, 6 'Term Hep. 61. Mitchell v. Cockbumu, ’ IT. Black. 379.

THIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money , Aim u,vj,Limim mi the defendant's use. The n contained a special count, stating several sums laid out, paid, and expended fo ueciarati paid by the plaintiffs, at different times, to several persons, at the request of the defendant, and for his use and benefit. The cause was tried at New-Haven, August term 1816, before Swift, Ch. J. and Goddard and Hosmer, Js.

<p>⅞¾' Where a testator gave Ms daughter, a feme covert, a legacy of 200/., directing the interest to be paid to her, during her coverture, and the principal, that the husband alone was entitled to receive such interest, and that his receipt was sufficient evidence of payment. Where an execution was levied upon mortgaged estate, and the appraisers, by adopting an erroneous principle of law, made too high an estimate of the amount of the incumbrance, in consequence of which, more land was taken than would otherwise have been sufficient to satisfy the debt; it was held, that the debtor was entitled to relief in chancery, and that the proper relief was a reconveyance of the excess of land so taken.</p>

<p>THIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received.</p> <p>The case was as follows. On the 25th of December 1799, the plaintiff being indebted to the administrators of Nicholas S. Masters, Esq. deceased, in the sum of 641 dollars, 64 cents, gave them his promissory note for that sum, payable on the 25th of December 1802, with interest annually j anil to secure the payment thereof, he mortgaged to them sundry pieces of land, and, among others, that on which the Episcopal church in Jloxbnry has since been erected. This note and the mortgage were afterwards assigned to Charles S. Masters, In February 1813, a decree in chancery was obtained against the plaintiff, to foreclose his equitable right to redeem the last mentioned piece of land, unless he should pay the amount due on the note, including principal and interest, with the costs of suit, by the first Monday of September following.. This the plaintiff failed to do : and thereby lost his equity of redemption. On the 2'th of November 1813, Charles S. Masters transferred 1 lie note to the defendant under the following written agreement : “ I, the subscriber, for a valuable consideration by me received of Asahel Bacon, do assign and transfer unto him the said Bacon, a certain note of hand, given by Ephraim Hinman to the administrators of Nicholas S. Masters, Esq. deceased, for the sum of 64 3 dollars, 64 cents, dated the 25th of December 17"99, payable on the 25th of December 1802, with interest annually, on which note there have been sundry payments, and the payment of which was secured by sundry mortgages, made at different times, on several pieces of land lying in Box-bury, to said administrators, the equity of redemption in one of which pieces of land, being that on which stands the Episcopal church in said town, has been foreclosed on the petition of said administrators, and the time of redemption expired, and the interest in said note having, by assignment; become wholly mine; Í do agree, that I will procure from said administrators a release of all their claim to said piece of land, the equity of redemption in which has been foreclosed as aforesaid, and will release the same to said Bacon, within six months from this date ; provided always, that the said Bacon shall receive, and he does hereby receive, the same, at his risk. And I do further agree, that 1 will procure a release of said mortgages which now remain unreleased, in the names of the said administrators, and will release the same to the said Ba.cun, w ithin six months after the equity ol redemption shall have expired, which shall be limited by any decree of court hereafter to he made upon any such mortgages aforesaid, upon which no decree of foreclosure has been made. November 27⅞, 1813. Charles S, Masters,,f</p> <p>At the same time» the defendant executed and delivered to Masters, the following writing : fi Whereas Charles A. Masters has t’ is day assigned to me a certain note of hand, given by Ephraim Hinman to the administrators of Nicholas S, Masters, Esq. deceased, for the sum of 641 dollars, 64 cents, dated the 35th of December 1T99, payable on the 25th of December 1812, with interest annually, which said note has been in part paid, and which had, by assignment from said administrators, become the sole property of said Charles 8. Masters, and the payment of w hich note was secured by sun - dry mortgages on various pieces, of land, situated in Roxbury, at different times by the said Hinman made, one of which mortgages, as far as it respects a piece of land on which the Episcopal church is situated in said Roxbury, has been foreclosed, and the time allowed for redemption expired ; and whereas I have given said Charles for said note, so secured as aforesaid, the sum of 862 dollars, 61 cents ; Now, therefore, I do, by these presents, stipulate and agree, that I w ill not put said note in suit against said Hinman, nor cause any process by petition of foreclosure upon any of the mortgages aforesaid, or otherwise, to be instituted against the said Hin-man, to enforce the collection of the money due on said note, or by me paid therefor, within six months from this date : and on payment by the said Hinman of said sum of 862 dollars, 61 cents, within said period of six months, with Ihe interest thereon from this time, I will deliver up said note to said Hinman, and will pay to him what said piece of land so foreclosed as aforesaid shall be appraised at, independent of the church thereon standing, and the fixtures and other things thereto pertaining, by judicious, disinterested men, to be agreed upon by me and the said Hinman, or in the event of our disagreeing, each one to choose one of said appraisers, and the men so chosen to choose the third; he the said Hi li-man, on receiving the amount of such appraisement, executing to me acquittances of said land so appraised as aforesaid. And I do hereby agree, that this instrument shall he liolden by said Masters for the said Hinman? s benefit; provided he performs the conditions herein specified. November 2fth, 1815.</p> <p> ¿Isabel Bacon” </p> <p>The plaintiff was not present when these agreements were made, and was ignorant of them.</p> <p>The defendant did not, within six months afterwards, take any measures to enforce a collection of the note, or to foreclose the mortgage.</p> <p>On the 26th of May 1814, the plaintiff, in pursuance of the agreement last recited, tendered to t lie defendant the sum of 880 dollars, 50 rents, being the amount paid by the defendant to Masters, with interest; which was accepted by the defendant, after much conversation, about sun-set. The plaintiff, immediately, and without first making any attempt to agree with the defendant upon the men to appraise said land, offered, as an appraiser by him chosen, Aaron Hitchcock of JY%w« Milford, who was then present, and whose place of residence, was about seven miles from the land. At the same time, the plaintiff tendered to the defendant a quit-claim deed in fee of said land, duly executed and acknowledged; which the defendant refused to accept. The defendant also declined, at that time, to appoint an appraiser, or to take any measure for appraising said land, observing that Hitchcock lived out of lioxbury, — that he had no other objection to him, — and that he would go to. Woodbury, an adjoining town, and advise with his counsel whether the plaintiff had right to offer an appraiser who lived out of lioxbury, before he would do any thing further in the business. On the next day, tin* defendant, on his return from Woodbury, met the plaintiff in the highway, and observed to him, that he had appointed Philo lie Forest of Woodbury, as an appraiser ; to which the plaintiff replied, that that man should not go on the land. Nothing more was done, or offered, by either party.</p> <p>Shortly afterwards, R. R. Hinman, Esq. the plaintiff’s son, knowing that the money had been paid by his father, and received by the defendant, and being informed by bis lather, that the note had not been given up, applied, without any particular instructions from his lather, to the defendant for the note, who, on request, delivered it up to him. lie carried it home, and shewed it to his father, informing him what he had done. His father did not disapprove of his conduct in getting the note ; which is still in his possession.</p> <p>Under these circumstances, the plaintiff sought to recover back the money which he had paid.</p> <p>The case was referred to the nine Judges for their advice.</p>

<p>It is sufficient, to support an order for the maintenance of a bastard child, that the court find the defendant guilty of begetting the child, as set forth in the complaint, without expressly-adjudging him to be the putative father.</p> <p>In such order, the court may include an allowance of expenses for the child at its birth.</p>

THIS was a bill in chancery for a foreclosure of mortgaged premises. The bill stated the following case. On the 10th of May, 1808, one Horace Baldwin being indebted to dshbel Baldwin, the plaintiff, in the sum of 500 dollars, gave him a promissory note for that sum, payable on demand with interest, and secured the same by the mortgage of a piece of land in Litchjield, worth about 2000 dollars.

THIS was an action on a promissory noto. The plaintiff sued as indorsee. The cause was tried at Hartford, February term 1817, before Trúmbull, Hosmer and Gould, Js. The note was given in the course of business, by the defendant, to Samuel Pettes, being payable to him,or order,at the Hartford bank; and was, by Pettes, indorsed to the plaintiff.

THIS was an action of ejectment, for one undivided fourth pai'-f of a piece of land in Trumbull, containing about fifty-two acres, The case was as follows. Eliakim Walker, being seised of the demanded premises, made his will, on the 29th of .Time 1812, and died in the month of December following.

THIS was a scire-facias against Wooster, as the agent, trustee and debtor of John Platt, an absent and absconding debtor.

THE declaration alleged, that the defendants, with force and arms, entered upon the land of the plaintiff, and with their dogs, by them owned and kept, chased, worried and killed, twenty-eight sheep, of the plaintiff, of the value of 500 dollars, contrary to the statute law, in such case made and provided.(a) The cau.se was tried at AFew-Haven, January term, 1817, before Trumbull, Ilosmer and Gould, Js.

THIS was an action for money liad and received to the plaintiffs’ ose. There were several counts, in some of which the circumstances under which the money was paid, were particularly stated. - The cause was tried at New-Haven, January term, 1817, before Trumbull, Hosmer and Gould, Js.

THIS was an action of book debt, for articles furnished in New-York, in the summer of 1811, as necessaries and outfits of the brig Neptune, bound on a voyage to New-Orleans, and for advances for the repairs of that vessel, made in New-Orleans, in the autumn of the same year. The defendant pleaded nil debet. The cause was tried at Middletown, December term, 1816, before Trumbull, Hosmer and Gould, Js.

JUDGMENT being rendered against the defendant by default, before the superior court in Litchfield county, Jiugust term 1817, he moved the court that execution should issue against his goods and estate only, and not against bis person. The facts were these.

THIS was an action of ejectment, to recover an undivided part of two pieces of land, bearing such proportion to the whole as 597.01 bears to 5069.94. The case was as follows. The plaintiff claimed title by virtue of an execution in his favour, against Simeon Mitchell, on which the premises were set off. The first piece lay partly in Roxbury, and partly in Washington ; and the second, wholly in Washington.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action of debt, on a bond, given to the plaintiff, as judge of probate, by the defendant, as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Stephen Biackstone, deceased. The plea, having prayed oyer of the condition, which was in the usual form, averred performance.

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, on the ship (fiarles, from New-York to St. Bartholomews. The tried at New-liar ( August term, 181 5 cause before Edmond and Smith, .Is.

THIS was an. action against the defendants, as .drawers of a bill of exchange. The cause was tried at Mew~Haven, August term, 1817, before Edmond and Smith, Js. On the trial, the plaintiff read in evidence, a bill of exchange, which was as fallows : “ Exchange for 4501. Sterling. Derby, Connecticut, 7th July, 1814. At sixty days sight of this first of exchange, (second and third of the same tenour and date not paid,) pay to the order of Messrs.

THIS was an action of assumpsit for the freight of thirty-nine casks and sixty bags of rice from New-London to the West-Indies. The declaration consisted of two counts. The first count stated a contract, on the part of the plaintiff, to transport the rice to Antigua, in the West-Indies, and on the part of the defendant, to pay 441 dollars for the freight.

THIS was a scire-facias against the defendant, as the factor, agent, &c. of one Titus Hall Beach, an absent and absconding debtor. The defendant was served with a copy of the writ in the original suit, on the 23d of October 1815. In that suit the plaintiff recovered judgment; and a demand was duly made of the defendant, on the execution, on the 18th of May 1816. The defendant pleaded, that he was not factor, agent, &c.; on which issue was joined.

Till'S was an action on a promissory note for 314 dollars, 25 cents, dated April 5th, 1815, payable to the plaintiff, on demand. Held: and the defendant gets a benefit to himself. The transaction rests on the same ground as it would, if the defendant had bought an usurious note, and given his own obligation for it. 2. That the note in Suit, at any rate, was not usurious.

THIS was an appeal from a decree of probate, ordering a distribution of two tracts of land in Stamford, part of the estate of Daniel Scofeld deceased, to his heirs at law. The appellants were the North Baptist Society in Stamford, by their agents, Lockwood and others. The case was as follows.

11ST ERROR. TS1.Í& was an action on the statute « to prevent encroach-meals on h i¡chw(njs,* (a) brouglii by Leave incur Hi and others, as select-men of the town of Huntington, against Tomlinson, s ⅛ before Mel French, Esq. si justice of the peace for Fairjield county.

T1IIS was a bill in chancery, brought by David Walker anti the heirs of Nathan Nichols Walker, against their sisters Patience Wheeler and Ann Wheeler, to regain their title to ¡he real cstuic, which had been distributed to then), under a conditional devise of their father Eliakim Walker, and had been forfeited at law, by non-performance of tin: condition.

THIS was an action on a promissory note, for 500 dollars, dated the 14th of March, 1816, and payable to the plaintiff, on demand.

in error. THIS was an action qui tam against Ilurlburt, brought in the county court, for Fairfield county, on the statute, tit. Held: that only one penalty of seventeen dollars can be recovered in one action, though there have been several months’ neglect. Bar - ber v. Eno, 2 Root, 150.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action on the case, by one of two covenan-tees, against the covenantor, for fraudulently taking, and pleading a discharge from the other covenantee, who had assigned his interest in the covenant, and yas a known bankrupt.

in errors. THIS was a scire-facias on a recognizance, entered into by Hollister, on a complaint exhibited against him, by Jinn Goffe, the mother of a bastard child, in a prosecution under our statute of bastardy.

THIS was an action qui tam, to recover the penalty, prescribed by the statute,(a) for taking excessive usury. The usury was alleged to have been taken of Thomas Rich, for the loan of 850 dollars for one year, secured by a note, dated the 2d of October, 1811, for 950 dollars, and the lawful interest. The cause was tried at Windham, September term, 181?, before Trumbull, Brainard and Hosmer, Js.

THIS was an action of trespass quarc clausum fregit, The cause was tried at Middletown, July term, I-817, before Edmond, Smith and Baldwin, Js. On the trial, the title to the land on which the trespass was alleged to have been committed, was the principal subject of controversy. The plaintiff claimed, that he owned the land, by a regular transmission of title to him from one Nicholas Ackley.

in error. THIS was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for East-Haddam district, making distribution of the estate °f Curtis, represented insolvent, to his creditors. had purchased a tract of land of Stephen Hosmer, the appellant; and to secure payment of the purchase money, they gave him their joint promissory notes, and a mortgage of the land. Hosmer exhibited these notes to the commissioners on Curtis’ estate, as a debt against that estate.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, fot' the support of Fanny Libbet, a pauper, and her two children. Fanny was bom in Hartford, in the year 1785, and was the illegitimate daughter of Sarah, a slave of Jonathan Butter, who is, and always has been, an inhabitant of Hartford. When Fanny was about three years old, Jonathan Butler gave her, and with her the right to all her services, to his sou, Frederick Butler, an inhabitant of Wethersfield.

in error. THIS was a proceeding under the statute of bastardy, (tit. 22.) in favour of the mother of a bastard child against the father, for its maintenance.

TIIIS was an action on a policy of insurance, on the brig Commerce, on a voyage from New-Orleans to Gibraltar, with liberty to go to Malaga and the Cupe áe Verds, for salt, and back to her port of destination in the United States; ami “ upon freight of all kinds of lawful goods and merchandizes, laden, or to be laden, on board said vessel.” The policy contained the following clause: “ The said vessel, tackle, &c. for so much as concerns the assured, by agreement made between…

in error. THIS was an action on the case against Enoch Parsons, Esq. Sheriff of Middlesex county, for an escape. in the writ the plaintiffs described themselves thus : “ David Ely and Samuel Parsons, both of the city and state of JVew-York, merchants in company under the firm of Ely ⅜* Parsons.” The defendant pleaded in abatement, first, that the plaintiffs were neither of them inhabitants of this state, and that they did not, when this writ was granted, give any security to…

THIS was an action against Enoch Parsons, Esq. sheriff of the county of Middlesex, for the escape of Josiah Williams from the limits of the prison. Williams, at the time of service of the writ, was standing on the steps of Nehemiah Hubbard’s store, on the west side of Main street, in the city of Middletown.

THIS was an action of book-debt, to recover of the defendant, as the guardian of Betsey A. Sloper, the sum of 109 dollars, 84 cents, expended by the plaintiff for her support and education. The cause was tried at Haddam, December term, 1817, before Trumbull, Baldwin and Hosmer, Ja. on the general issue, closed to the court. James Sloper, a resident of Middletown, in September 1806, married Charlotte Haskell, an inhabitant of the same town.

THIS was an action of account, alleging that tiic defendant, being owner of the brig Diligence, lying in the harbour of Mew-London, and bound thence to the West-Indies, whereof Sylvester Pratt was master for the voyage, received of the plaintiff on board said brig two horses, to transport to the West-Indies, and there to sell and dispose of to the benefit both of the plaintiff and of the defendant, and to render to the plaintiff a reasonable account in the premises.

of the nine Judges, (ante 262. 269.) at an adjourned term of the superior court, at Neiv-Haven, in Sprit 18Í8, before Trumbull, Baldío in and Hosmer, Js. A NEW trial was had in this cause, pursuant to the advice The case, as it then appeared, was as follows.

in error. THIS was a bill in chancery, brought by Ward against Tomlinson, stating, that they were partners in trade, without limitation of time; that the co-partnership commenced in November 1797, and ended in July 1816; that the parties dealt largely in merchandize, &c. praying for an account before a committee, the appointment of persons to distribute the property, and a receiver to collect the debts.

THIS was an action of assumpsit against John R. Landon,. Aaron Smith and David Smith, surviving partners of the late firm of Smith, Taylor & Co., consisting of the present defendants and David Taylor, now deceased. The declaration contained four counts.

THIS was an action against flic defendant, as sheriff of the county of Litctifield, for the default of David Bird, one of his deputies, in relation to the collection and return of an execution in favour of the plaintiffs, against H'almm lewis. The date of the execution, as alleged in the declaration, was the 5th oí December, 1814, and the delivery to Bird, the 31st of that month. On the trial in the county court, on the general issue, the plaintiffs proved their declaration.

THIS was action of assumpsit, by the indorsee of a note, claiming, through two intermediate indorsements, against the first indorser. The cause was tried at Mew-Haven, January term, 1818, before Trumbull, Baldwin and Hosmer, Js. The note in question was made by John S. Whittlesey, payable to Mormand Dexter, (the defendant) or order, six months from the'date, and dated September 28th, 1815.

THIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money had and received. The cause was tried at Neiv-IIavcn, at an adjourned term in April 1818, before Swift, Ch. J. and Baldwin and Goddard, Js. The plaintiff, the defendants, Gad Peck and Goodrich ⅜ Deforest, on the 30th of July 1813, were the joint owners, in equal proportions,' of a quantity of corn meal, and other articles suitable for the Wcst-Iiulia market, of the value of 3,200 dollars.

in error. THIS was an action of book debt, brought by Bmnel against Pinto.

THIS was an action of assumpsit on a bill of exchange, drawn by Darling The cause was tried at Nw-Haven, January term 1818# before Trumbull, Baldtcin and Hosmer, Js. The bill was as follows : “ Noyes Darling, Esq. agent of the Commission Company. Ninety days after date, please to pay to our own order two thousand dollars, value received, and charge to account. Your obt. sts. Darling & Chapman.” « Accepted.

THIS was an action of ejectment. The ouster was laid on the 16th August, 1816. Plea, JVb wrong nor disseisin. The cause was tried at Fairfield, December term 1817, before Edmond, Smith and Gould, Js. On the trial, the plaintiffs gave in evidence a mortgage deed to them, executed by the defendant, on the 5th of April 1815, conditioned for the payment of two notes for 750 dollars 94 cents, each.

THIS was an action of ejectment for two pieces of land in Greenwich. The cause was tried at Fairfield, December term, 1817, before Edmond, Smith and Gould, Js. The plaintiff claimed title to the demanded premises, by a conveyance from Simeon H. Minor, Esq. whose title, if he had any, was acquired by the levy of an execution. It was admitted, that at the time of the levy, the title was in Oliver Palmer, the execution debtor.

THIS was a bill in chancery fora foreclosure of the equity of redemption in mortgaged premises. All persons interested were made parties, and were cited in. on the 3d of February 1812 mortgaged, the premises to Truman Minor, for 3,143 dollars. On the same day, he mortgaged the same land to William Wright for 5,500 dollars. Both deeds were entered upon the town-records, on the day of their date.

THIS was an action against the defendant, as sheriff of the county of Harford, for the escape of Solomon Carpenter from the liberties of the prison. There were two counts. The first alleged an escape on the 31st of January, 1817 ; the second, on the 3d The cause was tried at Hartford, February term, 1818, before Trumbull, Baldwin and Hnsmer, Js.

THIS was an actios of assumpsit, brought against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, stated to be made on the 1st of January 1814, at Meriden, by Aaron Evarts, by which he promised to pay Theophilus Hall, or order, one year after the date, 100 dollars. Hall indorsed the note to the defendant ⅜ and the defendant to the plaintiff.

THIS was an action of trespass quart clausum fregit, alleging, that the plaintiff was lawfully seised and possessed of a certain tract of land, lying in the town of Suffieli, bounded North on the plaintiff’s own land in Connecticut river, East on the centre of the bed of Connecticut river, South on John Wright’s land in said river, and West on the West bank of said river, containing five acres of land covered with f he water flowing in said river j and that the defendants,…

THIS was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiffs as the only surviving partners of the late firm of JVor-⅞* Bush. The declaration stated, that Norton Sp Bush, on the 20th of February 1812, entered into a contract in writing with the defendant, in these words : “ It is agreed by and between the parties here subscribing, that Judson Canfield agrees to deliver to the order of Norton [Signed.] Judson Canfield.

THIS was an action of assumpsit. The declaration stated, that on the 20lh of July 1816, the plaintiff contracted with Hyde Clark and others, to transport a raft of lumber, being 180 thousand feet, from Hartland hi Vermont to East-IIaddam in tills state, and for such transportation, they agreed to pay him 6 dollars for each thousand feet; that the plaintiff, in pursuance of this agreement, immediately sailed with the raft, and arrived with it at Hartford, on his way to…

THIS was an action against tlie defendant, as sheriff of the county of JYew-Haven, lor the escape of Ralph Pearl. Pearl had given a note for 200 dollars, payable to the plaintiff, or order ; which the plaintiff sold and delivered to Stephen Walkley, without indorsing it.

THE plaintiffs recovered judgment, by foreign attachment, against Joseph Hart, for 1,623 dollars, 79 cents, and brought this scire-facias against Jformand Knox, Boland Lee and Jared Scarborough, averring that they were, at the time the copies were left in service with them, “ attorneys, factors, agents, trustees and joint debtors to said Joseph Hart, and William Hart and John Hart jointly and that the defendants “ had in their hands of the moneys of the said Joseph Hart, and…

'.niTS was an action of ejectment, tried at Norwich, January term 1818, before Swift, Ch. J. and Brainurd and Goddard, Js. The plaintiff claimed title by virtue of the levy of an execution, in his favour against Shapley Morgan, on the demanded premises. The defendant claimed as tenant under Seth Stoddard. To establish Stoddard’s title, the defendant offered in evidence a deed from Shapley Morgan to Stoddard, given before the levy of the plaintiff’s execution.

in error. THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis, alleging, that the plaintiff [Robinson] was the lawful owner and possessor of a farm of land situated in Lebanon, abutting about 100 rods on the main town-street, and containing about sixty acres ; which was, for many years, possessed by his father and brother, now deceased ; and that in the front of said farm of land, and nearer to the plaintiff’s land than to any other person’s, was situated a small natural pond of…

THIS was an action on a promissory note, brought by Elizabeth Slocum, as administratrix of John Slocum, deceased, against Peleg Sanford, the maker. The note was as follows : “ Portsmouth, June 21st, 1809.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, alleging that the plaintiff, on the 28th of June 1808, at the request of Sally Hubbard, then Sally Phelps, a feme sole, Joseph D. Phelps, since deceased, Stiles Phelps and Jonathan Phelps, executors of the will of Charles Phelps, Esq., deceased, signed, with them, a bond to the judge of probate, for the faithful performance of their trust as executors, in consideration whereof, they promised the plaintiff, that they would, at all times, fully…

THIS was an action of assault and battery and false im-prisonraent, alleged to have been committed at Franklin, on the 29th day of December, 1816. „ The cause was tried at Norwich, January term 1818, before Swift, Ch. J., and Brainard and Goddard, Js. The defendant, Mel, was a constable of the town of Franklin; and bad in his hands for collection, a legal execution, in favour of one Palmer, against the plaintiff. The 29th of December, 1816, was Sunday.

THIS was an action on a probate bond, tried at Norwich, January term 1818, before Sxvifl, Ch. J., and Braiuard and Goddard, Js. Held: that the husband and wife may join in an action on a promise to the wife. Prat <§• ux. v.Taylor.Cro. Elia. 61. Brashford v. Buckingham ⅜ ux. in error, Cro. Jac. 77. 205. Hilliard v. Ham-bridge, Meyn 36. Rose ⅜ ux. v. Bowler §• al. 1 II. Black. 108. 114.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, to recover the dividends, for a certain period, on twenty-live shares of the capital stock of the Talcott Mountain Turnpike Company. Held: that an annuity charged upon the post-office, until a certain sum to be laid out in land should be raised, was a mere personal annuity. Lady Holdernesse v. Marquis of Carmarthen at. 1 Bro. Ch. Ca. 377. 3.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by the Marlborough Manufacturing Company, to recover of the defendant, as a member of the company, and a proprietor of one share of the stock thereof, the sum of 300 dollars, being the amount of an assessment upon each share, laid bf the'directors, at a meeting held at Marlborough, on the 11th of December, 1816.

THIS was an action on the case, wherein the plaintiff declared, that he is now, and for many years has been, the owner of a certain grist-mill, and saw-mill, on Blackledge river, in the town of… Held: that where two have originally an equal right, one, by his sole enjoyment, gains an entire and exclusive right to the use of light, air or water, in tbe manner in which he has been suffered to enjoy it alone. A different doctrine would be ruinous.

THIS was an action of assnmpsU,- for nrces*.«fur-nished by the plaintiffs, between the 1st day of and (lie 1st day of August, 1815, to Erastus Peck, a pauper, alleged to be an inhabitant ofthe town of Farmington. The cause was tried at Litchfield, August term, 1818, before Trumbull, Hosmer and Gould, Js. On the trial, the only question was, whether the settlement ofthe pauper, at the time when the plaintiffs supported him, was in Farmington, or in Colebrook.

THIS was an action of ejectment for certain lands in Woodstock, in the county of Windham. The cause was tried at Windham, September term, 1818, before Swift, Cii..!. and Edmond and Peters, Js. On the trial, the plaintiffs claimed litle to the lands demanded, under a sale, by order of the court of probate for Pomfret district, within which they lay, in pa\ ment of debts due from William Dudley, late of Roxbury in Massachusetts, deceased.

THIS was an action of trespass, for taking and carrying away various articles of dry goods and groceries, usually kept in a country store ; a large, quantity of brushes and shaving boxes, finished… Held: or disposed of, by virtue of a writ of attachment, and certain executions, founded on bona fide debts, in his favour, against Judson which was the only trespass and taking dohe by the defendants.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, for the use and occupation of a house in Boston, belonging to Elam, the intestate, ° S¡irp(] and oiTi(])ic'd by Mrs. .Mari) Miles, while she was The cause was tried at JVew-Haven, August term, 1818, before Swift, Ch. J. and Braviará and Chapman, Js. ft was admitted, that Mrs. Miles, then the defendant** wife, had occupied, from the 13th of July, 1811, to the time of Elam's death, on the 25th of October, 1813, the house mentioned in the…

THIS was an action brought by the plaintiffs, as indor-sees of a promissory note, made by Lamson & Clark, against the defendants, merchants in company, under the firm of Scovil, Lamson & Co., as indorsers. The declaration contained three counts. In the first, it was alleged, that payment of the note was demanded of the makers, and notice non-payment given, in due. season, to the defendants.

in error. THIS was am action of debt, on a bond, executed by James Backus, on the 29th of December 1803, for 3000 dollars, payable to Margaret Backus ; to which bond there was the following condition, viz. “ That whereas the. said James Backus has agreed, in consideration of the said Margaret’s quit-claiming to him all her right to the estate of the late Elijah Backus, Esq., to pay to her, annually, on the first day of May, during her natural life, the sum of 185 dollars,…

THIS was an action of assumpsit, describing the defendants as late copartners in trade, under the name and firm of Nathaniel Gilbert & Co. The declaration contained four counts, the second of which was general, stating, that at Norwich, on the 2d of July 1812, the defendants became indebted, as traders in company as aforesaid, to the plaintiff, in the sum of 875 dollars, for so much money, at that time, had and received to the use and benefit of the plain!iff. and in law…

THIS was an action on a promissory note, wherein the plaintiff declared, that the defendant, by the name, of Arthur IV. Magill, agent for the Middletown Manufacturing yConi-pany, in and by a certain writing or note, under his hand, and by him well executed, dated the 18th day of August 1815, promised the plaintiff, sixty days from date, to pay to ■him» for value received, the sum of 300 dollars, in Mew-Fork money ; making a proferí of the note, and alleging a breach.

THIS was an action on the case, for the non-performance of an award.

A NEW trial having been granted, in this case, pursuant to the advice of the nine Judges, (ante 425. 431.) it was had at Mew-Haven, August term, 1818, before üwij't, Ch. J., aud Brainard and Chapman, Js.

THIS was an action of trespass vi et armis, for an assault ami false imprisonment, tried at Mew-Haven, August term, 1818, before Swift, Ch. J., and Brdinard and Chapman, Js.

THIS was an action of account, wherein the plaintiffs declared, “ that the defendants, at Georgetown in the state of South-Carolina, on the 13th of April 1812, being masters of the sloop Three Sisters, then bound on a voyage to Charleston, and elsewhere, thence back to Georgetown, received of the plaintiffs on board said sloop, of the proper goods of the plaintiffs, [specifying the articles] to transport to Charleston, and elsewhere, and to sell and dispose of the same to…

in error. THIS was an action of slander, brought by Benjamin R. Fowler and Peggy Fowler, his wife, against Frisbie, charging him with having “ uttered and published, of and concerning the said Peggy, the following false, scandalous and malicious words, to wit, she (meaning the plaintiff) is as common as the New-York wkores, and has been kept as a mistress nine years ; and she may help herself, and be damned, for I can prove it.” Another count stated the Words thus : « She…

<p>JJV* the report of this case, ante 161. 168., Judge Smith is stated to have concurred in the opinion of Judge Edmond. This is true as to the result; but as he pi acceded on very different grounds in coming to that result, it seems proper to subjoin, in this place, a correct note of his opinion, with which the Reporter has since beenfurnished.</p>