Volume 22 — Connecticut Reports

This was an action, founded on a special contract of the defendants, to carry the plaintiff safely, by means of railroad cars and stages, from the town of New Haven to the village of Collinsville.

<p>In an action upon a contract oí warranty, the party injured may, at his election, declare in assumpsit or in tort.</p> <p>Whether an action is, or is not, trespass on the case within the meaning of our Statute, (tit. I., ch. xii., § 152,) is determined by the form of the declaration, and not by the subject matter of the suit.</p> <p>An action in which the declaration is in form ex delicto, and embraces three counts, two upon a false warranty, and the other upon a false representaation respecting a horse, is trespass on the case. And where the plaintiff in such action obtained a verdict for twenty-three dollars damages, it was held, that the allowance of more costs than damages was contrary to the statute and erroneous.</p>

<p>The settlement of a free woman in this state, is not superseded, by her marriage with a slave owned by a master residing in another state, and the subsequent emancipation of such slave, unless it is shown, as a matter of fact, that such previous settlement is thereby changed, under the laws of the latter state.</p> <p>The settlement of such free woman is communicated, both to her legitimate and her illegitimate children, who are born within this state, subsequent to her marriage.</p>

This was a bill in chancery, brought to the superior court for New Haven county, by Henry White, as executor and trustee under the last will and testament of Samuel J. Hitchcock, deceased, asking for the aid and direction of the court in carrying into execution certain trusts created by said will, in relation to which the language of the will was ambiguous and doubtful in its meaning; and further praying,; that the legatees and heirs at law of the testator might be compelled…

This wras an action of assumpsit, brought in the names of Enos T. Tuttle and Elizabeth D., his wife, to recover the amount of a promissory note not negotiable, given to the said Elizabeth D., on the 1st day of January, 1848, while she was sole and unmarried.

This action was brought against the New York and New Haven Railroad Company, to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff’s land, which was situated on both sides of Cherry street, in the city of New Haven. The declaration embraced two counts, one of which was in trespass, and the other, trespass on the case. The defendant pleaded the general issue. The cause was tried at New Haven, October term, 1851.

This was an action on the covenants of a warranty deed, brought to the superior court for New Haven county. The declaration contained three counts.

This was a motion in error, brought to the superior court, holden at New Haven, at the January term, 1852, to reverse an order of the county court, made in a cause, wherein Finch was plaintiff, and Ives the defendant. The action was assumpsit, demanding thirty dollars damages, and was originally brought before a justice court, hold-en on the 17th day of August, 1850, when judgment was rendered in favor of Finch, the plaintiff.

This was an action of trespass, qu. cl.fr., brought by Edward P. Brownell, against William Palmer, Jr., Charles W. Lay, Ezra T. Jones and Elijah C. Warner. The defendants general issue, with notice, that they should prove certain facts, as a justification. The cause was tried at Haddam, March term, 1851.

This was an appeal, taken in the name of the “ wardens and vestry of Trinity church, Portland, formerly known as the Episcopal church in the First Society of Chatham,” from a decree of the court of probate for the district df Chatham, allowing the administration account of Samuel Hall, surviving executor of -the last will and testament of John Shepard, deceased.

This was an action, brought to recover the amount of a promissory note, whieh, with its indorsement and guaranty, was as follows, viz.: “$367fVV Middletown, October 7th, 1848. “I promise to pay the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, or to the order of their Treasurer, three hundred and sixty-seven dollars, for value received, without defalcation, or discount, with interest, at six per cent., payable in twelve months after date—or sooner, if required to meet assessments…

This was an information, brought to the county court, against Robert Ransom, for theft, charging him with having stolen a pocket-book and various bank-bills, amounting to the sum of forty-three dollars,—the property of Charles H. Cooper.

This was an action of debt, brought by the state of Connecticut, against the town of New Londoz^S^mvSí^tíie sum of fifteen hundred… Held: for the choice of assessors and board of relief, and selectmen, on the first Monday of October, 1850, at which Reuben Heath, Charles W. Strickland and Alexander Merrill, were duly chosen assessors of said' town; and no other person, within the year next preceding said day, or since said day, and before the commencement of said suit,…

This was a bill in chancery, brought by Nathaniel Robinson, against John H. Cross and Benjamin Pomeroy. The facts stated in the'bill were, substantially, as follows. The plaintiff and defendants were joint owners of three several tracts of land described therein, and seised of the same, as tenants in fee and in common,—the plaintiff owning two undivided fifths, and the defendant three-undivided-fifths thereof.

This was a petition, brought to the county court of New London county, by Asaph Hurlburt and others, praying for a highway, to be laid out as near the shore of the river Thames as might be found practicable and expedient, from Gale’s ferry in the town of Ledyard, to the present highway, at Groton Bank, in the town of Groton.

This was a petition for a mandamus, to E. C. Chapman, C. D. Fillmore and William Clegg, commissioners appointed under the act incorporating the Thames Bank, “ to see that the provisions of said act, relating to the deepening and improvement of the channel of the river Thames, are carried into full effect, and annually to settle and adjust the accounts of the expenditures made in the same, and of the tolls received therefor.” The petition stated, that in 1825, the petitioners…

This was. a bill in equity, brought to the superior court for New London county. Douglass and Prentiss mortgaged to certain creditors, among whom were the plaintiffs and the defendants, certain personal property, to secure their respective debts. The debts of the mortgagees, 'not parties to the bill, had been previously paid, partly by the proceeds of the mortgaged property, and partly by funds derived from otW sources.

This was an action on the ease, tried before the superior court, holden at Brooklyn, in April, 1852.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the Wind-ham Bank, as holders of a bill of exchange, against the defendants, as indorsers. The bill of exchange referred to was drawn by George Hobart, of Norwich, in this state, upon Mansfield, Hall & Stone, of Philadelphia, and by them accepted, for $417.26 ; dated January 31, 1849, and payable four months after date, to the order of the defendants.

This was a petition, brought to the August term of the county court, for Windham county, 1850, by Andrew J. Litchfield and others, praying for a new highway, to be laid out and established, from the town of Chaplin, to the village of Willimantic, in the town of Windham.

This was an action on a policy of insurance, to recover the sum of 7,000 dollars, insured against loss by fire,'on a woolen mill, stock and machinery, owned by the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded the general(issue, with notice of special matter, to be given in evidence. The cause was tried at Hartford, April term, 1853.

This was a scire facias, in a process of foreign attachment, setting forth a judgment, obtained by the plaintiffs, before the superior court for Hartford county, on the fourth Tuesday of January, 1850, against Harvey B. Anderson, Loyal C. Anderson and Hobart Nickerson, all of Coral, in the state of Illinois, partners in company, under the name and firm of H. B. Anderson &' Co. The cause was tried at Hartford, January term, 1853, when the court found the facts, of which the…

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before the jury, at the August term, 1852, of the county court, for Hartford county. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of special matter, to be given in evidence, and also, that she should claim a set-off of an indebtedness of the plaintiff.

The superior court at Litchfield, at its August term, 1852, passed a decree, pursuant to the advice of this court, in the case of Canfield v. Bostwick and others,-21 Conn. R., 551. Both the appellant and the appellees claimed costs, but said superior court decreed, that no costs should be taxed or allowed to either party. To revise this decision, Royal I. Canfield brought the. case before this court, by motion in error.

This was an action of ejectment, for a parcel of land in the town of New Hartford, formerly owned by Sylvester Seymour, deceased. The cause was tried at Litchfield, August term, 1852. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in question, under a deed, executed by authority of the court of probate.

This was an action of ejectment, brought to the superior , court, for the county of Litchfield, in August, 1850, to recover possession of certain premises situated in Barkhamsted; of which premises the plaintiff claimed to have been dispossessed, by the defendant.

This was a bill in equity,' brought by Joel Hawley and others, against George C. Burgess, praying that the defendant might be ordered to deliver up to the plaintiffs, a certain note of hand, and be enjoined against its collection. The cause came to the superior court, at its August term, 1852, when the following facts were found by the court. The plaintiffs were the brother and sisters, sole heirs at law, of Cornelia L. Burgess, the deceased wife of the defendant.

This was an action upon the statute “ concerning highways and bridges,” brought against the town of Barkhamsted, for injuries suffered by the plaintiff, in his person and property, by reason of a defect in the covering of a bridge in said town, and the want of a railing on the sides thereof. The declaration contained three counts, which were essentially alike.

This was a bill in chancery, praying for an account of certain property, conveyed to the defendant in trust. The cause was referred to a committee, who, in their report, among other matters, found, that, on the 28th day of March, 1848, the plaintiff and William G. Pierce, were partners, in the name of Beckley & Pierce, in the manufacture of pig-iron, and were also partners with Henry L. Mun-son, in the name of “ J. A. Beckley & Co.,” in mercantile business.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Newell Pratt, against James Humphrey and Phebe Pratt, who were administrators on the estate of Andrew Pratt, late of Winchester, deceased. The declaration contained two counts, which were substantially alike.

This was an action of disseisin, to recover possession of a certain tract of land, containing about one-sixteenth part of an acre, with a school-house thereon. The cause was tried before the jury, at the term of the superior court, holden at Litchfield, in February, 1853. On the trial, it was admitted, that the title to the demanded premises was in the plaintiff, unless- he had conveyed the same to the defendants, by his deed, bearing date Nov. 22, 1845.

This was a bill in equity, brought to the superior court, for Litchfield county, by Calvin Butler, against Jacob Scovill, Riley Rexford, and the Cornwall Iron Company, praying for a disclosure, and an account.

This was an. action of assumpsit, brought by Daniel W. Weed, against Stephen Weed and another. The declaration contained a count for goods sold and delivered, and one for work and labor, together with the money counts. The cause was tried to the jury, under the general issue, in the superior court holden at Fairfield, in October, 1851.

This was an action on a bond, given by the defendants, as executors of the last will and testament of Hartwell Reed, deceased, to the plaintiff, as judge of probate for the district of Stamford. The defendants set out the condition of the bond, which was in the usual form, and pleaded performance generally.

This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two counts, one of which was general. The other alleged, that, on or about the first day of April, 1850, the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff, in the sum of fifty dollars, for labor and services before that time by the plaintiff done and rendered, in teaching school in a certain district in Pound Ridge, county of Westchester and state of New York, at the special instance and request of the defendant.

This was an action of debt on a bond, in the penal sum of $500, dated March 10th, 1849.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the Howard Insurance Company, a corporation constituted by the laws of the state of New York, against the Hope Mutual Insurance Company, a corporation by the laws of the state of Connecticut, to recover rent for the use and occupation of certain office apartments, in the city of New York. The cause was tried before the superior court, at Fairfield, February term, 1853.

This was. an action on the case, brought to recover the value of certain oxen, delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, as a drover. The cause was tried before the jury, at Danbury, October term, 1852.

<p>The husband and wife were divorced, by a decree of the superior court, upon her application, and the custody and control of their minor children were awarded to her. In an action of book debt, brought against the father, for the entire support and education of such children, furnished by her after such decree had been granted, it was held,.that she could not recover. (Two judges dissenting.)</p> <p>The case of Stanton v. Wilson, 3 Day R., 37, commented on.</p>

<p>The action of book debt will not lie for the use and occupation of real estate, where there has never been an actual occupancy; but when the defendant has actually occupied, during a portion of the period for which the plaintiff claims to recover, such action is the proper remedy, to recover such compensation as the plaintiff may be entitled to.</p> <p>Where a party enters into possession of real estate, as tenant of the owner, under an agreement which is invalid, by reason of the statute of frauds, or for other cause, and continues in such possession, paying yearly rent therefor, which is received and accepted as such,he becomes a tenant from year to year, and may be considered as holding, according to such agreement, which, in an action to recover an unpaid balance of rent, may be resorted to, as evidence, for the purpose of calculating the amount for which he is liable.</p> <p>If such tenant from year to year, abandons the occupancy of the demised premises, before the expiration of a year, without the consent of the landlord, he will not thereby exonerate himself from the payment of the rent for the residue of the year; nor will he be so exonerated, by the neglect of the landlord to make repairs, when there was no agreement to keep the premises in repair, and their condition, when left, was not materially different from what it was, at the commencement of the year; nor by reason of inconsiderable injuries occasioned by fire, where no demand is made upon the landlord, to repair such injuries. r</p>

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by a railroad corporation, to recover the amount of certain assessments upon shares of the stock of such corporation, held by the defendant, as an original subscriber. The cause came on for trial, before the jury, at the term of the superior court, holden in April, 1853, at Danbury.

This was a bill in chancery. In the original and supplemental bills, it was alleged, that one Martha Camp, when in life, the wife of the defendant, was the owner, in fee simple, of a certain piece of land, situated in the town of Plymouth, containing about two acres, with a dwelling-house, barn and other buildings thereon standing, and, while so in life, being desirous of making a disposition of the same, to take effect after her decease, for good and valuable considerations…

William Hemingway, one of the heirs at law of John Hemingway, deceased, appealed to the superior court, for New Haven county, from the following orders and decrees, passed on the 14th day of March, 1853, by the court of probate, for the district of New Haven, viz.: a decree accepting the administration account, with said estate, of Merrit Hemingway, the executor of the last will and testament of said deceased; an order to distribute and set out dower to the widow of said…

This was an action of trover, for forty seven bales of African wool, brought against Leander Parmelee, sheriff of the county of New Haven. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of special matter to be given in evidence.

This was an action of account, brought to the superior court for New Haven county, by Ansel M. Hatch, against Paul Spofford, demanding six hundred thousand dollars damages.

A new trial having been granted by this court, in the case of Hood v. The New York and New Haven Railroad Company, ante p. 1, the cause came on again for trial before the jury, at the term of the superior court for New Haven county, holden in January, 1853.

This was a bill in equity, brought by Henry J. Potter, against John Tuttle, praying for the specific performance of a written contract.

This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate, for the district of Haddam, appointing distributors upon, the estate of David Spencer, deceased, and the decree of said court, accepting the return of the doings of such distributors, by which the sum of $910.29, which was the interest accrued upon certain moneys deposited in the Middletown Savings Bank, in the name of the appellant, which she claimed ought to have been distributed to her, was distributed to other…

This was an action on the case, for a vexatious suit, brought against the East Haddam bank, described in the plaintiff’s declaration, as a “ corporation, established by the laws of the state of Connecticut, with power to sue and be sued.” The declaration alleged, that the defendants, on the 24th day of January, 1849, without probable cause, and with a malicious intent unjustly to vex, harass, embarrass and trouble the plaintiff, caused to be issued against him, a writ of…

This was a bill in chancery, to which was filed an answer and cross-bill. The plaintiffs, in the original bill, prayed the court to set aside and correct a partition of certain real estate, situated in the town of Portland, alleging, among other matters, that a part of said premises were originally owned by Maria A. Woodruff, the wife of Philo D. Woodruff, and in which said Maria A. and her husband, claimed an equity of redemption.

This was a bill in equity, brought too the superior court for New London county, by Dyer T. Brainard and others, inhabitants of the city of New London, against said city and Robert Coit, their treasurer.

This was a scire-facias, in a process of foreign attachment, demanding of Russell Wheeler and Dudley R. Wheeler, the amount of a judgment obtained by the plaintiff, against Joseph Kinney, before the county court for New London county, on the second Tuesday of November, 1848. The cause came, by appeal, to the superior court, for New London county, and was tried, on the general issue, at the term of said court, holden in September, 1852.

This was an action on the case, brought against the defendants, as common carriers, and demanding one thousand dollars damages. The cause was tried before the jury, at the November term of the county court for New London county, when the plaintiff obtained a verdict, and judgment was thereupon rendered in his favor for $584.59.

This was a bill in equity, praying for the foreclosure of mortgaged premises. No answer to the bill was filed, and the cause was referred to a committee, who made his report to the superior court, holden at Norwich, on the third Tuesday of March, 1853.

This was an action, brought by Seth L. and George R. Peck, upon a policy of insurance against loss or damage by fire, to the amount of one thousand dollars, viz., $500 upon a tannery and bark-mill, and $500 on stock therein. The policy declared on was in the usual form, and purported to he pursuant to, and under the conditions and limitations of, the charter of said company.

This was a bill in equity, brought by the city of Norwich, to enforce a lien, claimed by the plaintiffs, to exist, as security for the payment of $104.25, which they had expended, in grading, curbing and flagging a sidewalk. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth sections of the amended charter of the city of Norwich are as follows : “ Sec. 3.

This was a case, submitted to the superior court for New London county, upon a statement of facts, agreed to by the parties, under the statute of 1848, (Slat. 1849, pp. 109, -110;) and was reserved for the advice of this court. The case embraced the following facts : On the 15th day of February, 1852, William Lord, of Lyme, died, having made his last will and testament, which was subsequently duly proved and approved.

This was an action of book debt, brought by James Kay, against the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Company, and tried in the county court for New London county, on the general issue, closed to the court. On the trial, the following facts were found by the court: The plaintiff introduced an account against the defendants, of which the following is a copy, to wit: “ Nov. 5, Norwich and Worcester R. R. Co., 1852.

This was a bill in equity, brought to the superior court for Windham county. At the term of said court, holden in October, 1852, the cause was referred to a committee, who reported substantially the following facts, viz. : The plaintiffs are a corporation, constituted for the purpose of conducting water into the village of Canterbury.

This was an action, brought against Joseph H. Perry & Co., in the name of George Freeman, the payee of a negó» tiáble promissory note, executed by the defendants, July 14th, 1839, payable to the payee, or order, on demand 'with interest. The defendants pleaded sundry pleas in bar, upon the allegations in which pleas issues were joined; and the cause was tried thereon, before the superior court for Windham county, at the term holden in October, 1852.

This action, which was founded upon the statute “ concerning idiots, lunatics and spendthrifts,” was brought by the town of Canterbury to the superior court for Windham county, against John Bennett, to recover for expenses incurred in restraining and supporting one Hosmer Bennett, who was alleged to be a lunatic and distracted person, and the son of said John.

This was an action, brought to the superior court, for Windham county, on a promissory note, payable to the plaintiff, as trustee for Susan Cutler, the former wife of the defendant. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of special matter, to be given in evidence.

This was an action of assumpsit upon a promissory note, made by Henry C. Peckham, dated November 30, 1852, for the sum of two hundred dollars, payable in four months from its date, to one Robert Davis or order, and endorsed by him to the defendant, and by the defendant to the plaintiffs. In the superior court, holden at Brooklyn, at the April term, 1853, the parties agreed upon the following statement of facts, and the case was thereupon reserved for the advice of this court.