Volume 23 — Connecticut Reports

This was a petition for a partition of certain real estate, to which the plaintiff claimed title, as co-heir, with Winthrop Buck and others, of Martha Bulkley, deceased. Upon the trial of the cause, the court found the following facts.

This was • an appeal from the doings of the commissioners, on the estate assigned by William H. Imlay, for the benefit of his creditors, allowing a claim against said estate, in favor of the Pearl street Congregational society of Hartford. The cause was submitted to the superior court, at the term holden in January, 1854, on the following agreed statement of facts, and was reserved for the advice of this court.

This was an information, brought to the county court, against Charles H. Lucas, for placing obstructions upon the Middletown branch of the Hartford and New Haven railroad, and for taking up and removing certain parts of the superstructure of said road. The defendant pleaded not guilty; and upon the trial before the jury, the attorney for the state claimed to have proved the guilt of the defendant, by two witnesses.

Nancy Miller brought her bill in chancery, to the superior court, against Thaddeus Welles, alleging that, on or about the-day of-, she delivered to the defendant three thousand dollars, her own proper moneys, upon the special trust and confidence that the defendant should account to her therefor, on demand; that the defendant received said moneys upon such trust and confidence, and so to account therefor.

This was an information, in the nature of a quo warranto, in behalf of the state, at the relation of the first ecclesiastical society, against Orrin Atwater and Lorin Campbell, for usurping, using and exercising the office of trustees of the Lewis Academy.

This was an action on the case. The declaration embraced two counts.

This was an action of debt on book. The cause was referred to auditors, who made their report embracing the following facts.

This was an action upon a promissory note, tried before the superior court, at Hartford, at the January term, 1854. On the trial to the jury, the defendant, under his plea of set-off, introduced in evidence, a promissory note, executed by the plaintiff and two others, for the sum of $824.06, payable to the defendant, upon which he claimed more was due him, than he owed the plaintiff, and that he had a right to recover the balance.

This was an action of trover, for a schooner, called the General Morgan, tried by the jury, at the term of the superior court for Hartford county, holden in September, 1853.

This was a bill in chancery, brought to the superior court in the county of Hartford, to foreclose certain mortgaged premises.

The plaintiff, who was a physician, brought his^action of slander, against the defendant, which was tried at the term of the superior court holden at Litchfield, in November, 1853. The declaration contained two counts.

This was a bill brought to the superior court for the county of Litchfield, by Leonard Richardson and William H. Barnum, alleging, that they were tenants, in fee simple and in common, with the defendants, of a certain ore bed, called the Davis Ore Bed, situated in the town of Salisbury, together with the privilege of digging and carrying away the ore from said bed.

This was an action of debt on book, brought to the county court for the county of Litchfield. The cause was referred to an auditor, who, after a hearing, found and reported as follows: About the 1st of April, 1852, the plaintiff bound himself to labor for the defendant, for the term of three months, at least, from said 1st of April.

This was an action on the case, brought by Uriel Waterbury, against the Housatonic Railroad Company. The declaration contained two counts.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought to the county court, for Litchfield county, and thence appealed to the superior court. The declaration embraced a count upon a promissory note, and the common counts. Before any bill of particulars had'been filed by the defendant, an auditor was appointed in said cause, by consent of the parties, who, after a hearing, made his report to said court, at the term, holden in February, 1854, substantially as follows.

This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate, for the district of Cornwall, made in the progress of the settlement of the insolvent estate of Hopkins T. S’. Johnson, deceased. The cause was heard before the superior court for Litchfield county, at the February term, 1854, when the court found the following facts, and reserved the case, for the advice of this court.

This was a bill in equity, to foreclose mortgaged premises, brought against James W. Jauncey, the mortgagor, Edward S. McPherson and Edward N. Jauncey, attaching creditors, and David M. Marvin, a subsequent mortgagee.

This action was originally brought by the borough of Southport, an incorporated borough, in the town of Fair-field, against Horace Ogden, before a justice of the peace, and thence, by appeal, came before the county court.

This was an action on the case, brought to the superior court for the county of Fairfield.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before the jury, in the county court, for the county of Fairfield, at the December term, 1853. On the trial, the plaintiff claimed to ' recover the amount of certain taxes, collected on a list, made out against him, by the assessors of the town, in the year 1850, wherein all'his property had been put into his list, at threefold the assessed value thereof.

This was an action on the case, tried before the jury, on the general issue, at the term of the superior court for the county of Fairfield, holden in October, 1853.

This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover possession of a tract of land situated in the town of West-port, tried before the superior court, at the April term, 1854. Upon the trial to the jury, it was admitted, that the late Hon. Samuel B. Sherwood was the owner of a tract of land containing about twenty-two acres, embracing the demanded premises, which, upon his decease, descended to his children* Mrs. Bissel, Mrs. Jessup, and William B. Jessup, as his heirs-at-law.

This was an action, brought by the plaintiffs, selectmen of the town of Danbury, upon the statute entitled, “ an act to prevent and remove nuisances, from highways, rivers and water-courses.” The declaration alleged, that the defendant had, erected a fence upon the public highway in said town, at the intersection of two highways, so as to include, in his enclosure, a part of the highways, by reason whereof they were made narrower than before, and the passing of travellers…

This was a bill in equity, brought by Stephen B. Provost and others, against William L. Smith and William Newman for a discovery and relief. The bill alleged that said Smith, on the twenty-second day of January, 1840, executed and delivered to the plaintiffs and to said Newman, the following agreement in writing: “ This is to certify that I have received from Silas Scofield, Jr., and George Scofield, five hundred dollars, from Stephen B. Provost, J. D. Warren, Wm.

This was an action, brought by Jonathan Nichols against the city of Bridgeport. The declaration embraced two counts. The first was the common count for money had and received.

This was an action on the case, brought by Enos Foot, against the New Haven and Northampton company, Henry Ives, Charles Brockett and Arba Dickerman, for diverting the water, of what was formerly the Farmington canal, upon the land of the plaintiff. The New Haven and Northampton company were incorporated, in May, 1836, and are the successors of the corporation estabished by the general assembly, by the name of the president, directors and company of the Farmington canal.

This was an action of trover for a heifer. The cause was tried before the jury, at the term of the county court, holden at New Haven, in March, 1853.

This was an action on the statute entitled “ an act relating to sheriffs,”* The declaration contained the following allegations. The defendant, as a constable of the town of Derby, arrested the plaintiff, and carried him before a justice of the peace, by virtue of a warrant issued upon the complaint of a grand-juror, charging the plaintiff with the commission of a riot.

This was an action of trespass, for taking and carrying away the plaintiff’s wagon. The cause was tried to the jury, before the county court for Middlesex county, at the December term, 1853. On the trial, the defendant, in justification of the acts complained' of, • offered in evidence a writ of attachment, directed to- him as an indifferent person, and returnable before a justice of the peace, by virtue of which, he took the property in. question.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Abner G. Bevin, against the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, upon a policy of insurance, made for one thousand dollars, in favor of the plaintiff, upon the life of George Barstow. The cause was tried before the superior court, for the county of Middlesex, at the term holden in March, 1854. The court found the following facts.

This was a bill in chancery brought by the Second Ecclesiastical Society of Portland, against the First Ecclesiastical Society of Portland, to compel the defendants to make a division between the two societies of the fund, for the support of religious worship, and other corporate property belonging to the defendants.

This cause, a new trial having been granted therein, (see 22 Conn. R., 557,) came on a second time for trial before the jury, at the term of the superior court for New London county, holden in September, 1853.

This was an action of trespass for breaking, and entering certain apartments, used and occupied by the plaintiff as his dwelling-house, and forcibly ejecting, and removing him, and his family, and effects, therefrom. The cause was tried before the superior court for New London county, at the term holden in March, 1854.

This was a bill in chancery, brought by Lynde Lord, against Thomas Sill, to redeem certain mortgaged premises, and to obtain a conveyance of the defendant’s interest therein. To this bill, the defendant filed an answer, at the term of the superior court holden in December, 1853, when a committee was appointed, whose report, which was substantially as follows, embraced the facts material to the present case. .

The claims, of the parties in the above entitled cause, as to the manner in which the personal estate of William M. Lord, deceased, should contribute to the payment of such debts as were not provided for by the property specifically appropriated for that purpose, having been reserved by this court, (see 22 Conn. R., 595,) for further argument, that question was argued at the term of this court, holden at Norwich, in July, 1854.

This was an action of trespass, and trespass on the case, there being two counts of the former description, and one of the latter. The cause was brought to the county court for New London county, and tried at Norwich, in February, 1853.

This was an action brought to the superior court, for the county of New London, by Jesse Comstock against Asa Comstock, upon the covenants of a warranty deed of a certain tract of land situated in the town of Montville.

This was a bill in chancery, brought by Simeon W. Card, against the President, Directors and Company of the Q,uinebaug Bank. The facts in the case appear from the report of the committee, appointed by the court to ascertain them. They are substantially as follows': About the first day of October, 1849, the plaintiff, under a contract with one Tarbox, commenced building a dwelling-house on land owned by said Tarbox, situated in the town of Lisbon, and then in his possession.

A NEW trial having been refused in the ease of Bennet v. The Town of Canterbury, after a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, (see 22 Conn. R., 623,) the defendant* then brought the present writ of error to this court to reverse the judgment of the superior court, in said cause, on the ground of the insufficiency of the plaintiff’s declaration.

This was an action of trespass quwre clcmsum fregit, brought by Joseph Hill, against Josiah H. Bennett, Abraham Mathewson and Simon C. Mathewson, for breaking and entering the plaintiff’s close and cutting down and carrying away the trees that were growing thereon. The cause was tried on the general issue before the superior court for the county of Windham, at the term holden in January, 1854.

The plaintiffs brought their action of ejectment against Warren Atwood, for a tract of land, situated in the town of Windham. The cause came to the October term of the superior court for the county of Windham, and was reserved for the advice of this court, upon the following agreed statement of facts.

This was a bill in chancery, brought by the Windham Cotton Manufacturing Company, against the Hartford, Providence and Fishkill Railroad Company, and the New London, Willimantic and Palmer Railroad Company, to enforce the specific performance of an agreement. The superior court, at the April term, 1853, appointed James A. Hovey, Esq., a committee, to hear the parties, and find and report the facts in the ease.

This was a bill fox the foxeclosuxe of a moxtgage, brought by Mexrick W. Chapin against Fredexick Curtis. The cause was brought to the superior court for Hartford county, and referred to a committee, whose report embraced the following facts.

A new trial having been granted in this cause, (ante p. 44,) it again came on for trial, before the jury, at the term of the superior court, holden in September, 1854. The main question made upon the trial, related to the settlement of Samuel Ingraham.

This was an action of trespass, quare clausum fregit, brought to the county court of Hartford county, demanding seventy dollars damages, with costs of suit. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice that he would prove on the trial that the locus in quo, at the time of the grievances complained of in the plaintiff’s declaration, was his soil and freehold. The cause was tried before the jury, who returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

This was a petition to the county court, for the county of Hartford, brought by sundry inhabitants of the towns of Sims-bury and Granby, representing that a certain bridge, across Farmington river, had fallen down and become impassable ; that the river, at the point where it was located, was the dividing line between those two towns; and that the town of Granby was, by law, liable to maintain the bridge, but had neglected so to do: praying that an order might be made,…

This was a bill in chancery, setting forth that the plaintiff was the owner of three undivided tenth parts of two certain pieces of land, situated in the town of New Britain, over which the railroad company had constructed their road which they were using, without ever having caused the plaintiff’s interest therein to be appraised, or any damages paid to him, for the land taken by the company, and praying for an injunction against the further use of the land, by the company…

This was an action of trespass, tried before the jury, at the term of the superior court for Hartford county, holden in January, 1855.

This was a writ of mandamus, directed to the judges of the city court of the city of Hartford, requiring them to allow the complainant an appeal from a judgment of that court, or to show reasons to the contrary. The complaint alleged that one Nelson Mowry,in November, 1854, brought an action of assumpsit against the complainant, 1 demanding one thousand dollars damages, and before that court at the term holden in April, 1855, recovered judgment therein.

This was an action of disseisin. On the trial before the superior court for Litchfield county, at the February term, 1855, the court found the following facts. Samuel Chapin, the father of the defendant, died in the year 1830, owner in fee of the demanded premises.

This was an action in favor of Benjamin Buckingham against John C. Smith, administrator on the estate of Perry Smith, deceased, founded upon a promissory note, executed by said Perry Smith in his life-time. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations. On the trial, the execution of the note by the deceased was proved, but the defendant relied upon the statute of limitations, and the plaintiff upon the new promise set up in his replication.

This was an action, against the defendants, as common carriers, brought to recover the value of seven bales of leather. The defendants pleaded the general issue, upon which the cause was tried at Litchfield, August term, 1855. On the trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence, 1. The charter of the defendants, which authorized the construction of their road from Winsted to Bridgeport, in this state. 2.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought in the name of C. Fanton & Sons against the president, directors and company of the Fairfield County Bank. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and also pleaded the following plea in bar.

This was a proceeding in forcible entry and detainer, before a county commissioner and a justice of the peace for the county of Fairfield, instituted by Curtis Finch against Elizabeth Gray, Harvey Fitch, and Sturges Northrup.

This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for the district of Fairfield, finding that certain advancements had been made to the children of Jeremiah Sherwood, deceased, and directing that distribution of his estate should be made accordingly.

This was an action of trover, tried before the jury at Fairfield, February terra, 1855. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of special matter justifying the taking, to be given in evidence. Upon the trial, it was admitted that the defendant, as a deputy of the sheriff of the county of Fairfield, had attached the goods described in the plaintiffs’ declaration, as the property of Harvey Brisco, in the manner set forth in the notice, annexed to his plea.

This was a bill in chancery, to correct a mistake in a deed of land, given by the plaintiff to the defendant.

<p>This was a bill of interpleader, brought by the Consociated Presbyterian Society ,of Green’s Farms, against Staples & Adams, William S. Edgerton, Elnathan Wheeler, Henry B. Lockwood, Charles W. Hall, Daniel Burr, Hezekiah Lockwood, John Goodsell, John S. Hyde, Talcott R. Wakeman, Henry R. Wakeman, and Joseph B. French, who was the assignee of Hawley & Wheeler, praying the court to determine the amount then due from the plaintiffs, on a contract made with said Hawley & Wheeler, for the erection of a meeting-house, and also to order the defendants, severally, to set forth what right they had to the balance due on said contract, so that the plaintiffs might safely pay the same, and stating that they were ready, and willing, to pay said balance, when determined as aforesaid.</p> <p>The bill was dated March 22d, 1853.</p> <p>The cause first came before the court, at the April term, 1853, when the court found the allegations therein to be true, and ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs should retain, in their hands, the costs and charges of said petition, and that the defendants respectively, should interplead, answer, and set forth their claims to said fund or moneys, in the hand® of the plaintiffs. Thereupon, the defendants, respectively, filed their answers as follows:</p> <p>Talcott B. Wakeman alleged in his answer, that, previous to the contrast of said Hawley & Wheeler, in said bill referred to, he subscribed to aid in erecting said church, the sum of two hundred and seventy-five dollars; and said Henry B. Wakeman, the sum of two hundred dollars; that said Hawley & Wheeler, afterward, and while erecting said building, applied to them to furnish labor and materials for the same. Said Hawley & Wheeler agreed with them, that said society might pay them, by applying the sum to whatever balance might be due on said subscriptions, and the balance in cash, and charge the amount to said Hawley & Wheeler, on said contract; that this arrangement was made known to the plaintiffs, and they assented to the same ; that the amount due to them for said labor and materials, on the-— day of-, was $135.</p> <p>Elnathan Wheeler alleged in his answer, that, on the 26th day of February, 1853, said Hawley & Wheeler were indebted to him, in the sum of forty-three dollars and sixty-nine cents, for work done in and upon, and materials furnished for the construction of, the church of said society, by said Hawley & Wheeler; that, by force of the statute in such case provided, they were entitled to a lien upon said church, for the security of said sum; that on said 26th of February, 1853, he executed a certificate, pursuant to said statute, setting forth said indebtedness, which certificate was duly executed and recorded.</p> <p>William S. Edgerton alleged, in his answer, that he had a claim for materials furnished, and services rendered, for said church edifice, amounting to the sum of $174.51, and in conformity with the provisions of the statute, in such case made and provided, he lodged with the town-clerk of said town of Westport, a certificate of lien thereon, in accordance with the provisions of the statute, for said sum.</p> <p>John S. Hyde alleged, that, previous to the contract of said Hawley & Wheeler, in the bill referred to, he and his sister, Eleanor Hyde, subscribed, in aid of the erection of the church, or meeting-house, two hundred and fifty dollars, all of which was paid by them, except the sum of fifty dollars; that said Hawley & Wheeler applied to him to furnish labor and materials for said church, and agreed that said society might pay him for said services and materials, by canceling said subscription, and paying the balance in cash, and charge the same to said Hawley & Wheeler, on their contract for erecting said church ; that said arrangement was made known to said society, and they assented to the same; that, relying upon said arrangement, he did furnish materials and services, amounting on the first day of December, 1852, to one hundred dollars.</p> <p>Daniel Burr alleged, that said Hawley & Wheeler, on the —;-day of-, were justly indebted to him in the sum of forty dollars; that, to satisfy said indebtedness, said Hawley & Wheeler then drew an order, in his favor, upon said society, which order was accepted by said society, and thereby said Hawley & Wheeler transferred to him the sum of forty dollars, part of the amount due to them from said society for the erection of said church.</p> <p>Horace, Staples and George S. Adams, partners, by the name of Staples & Adams, alleged in their answer, that, previous to the contract of said Hawley & Wheeler, in said bill mentioned, said Horace Staples, on his own account, subscribed the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, to aid in erecting the church or meeting-house, which was erected for the plaintiffs by said Hawley & Wheeler; that one Samuel Meeker, now deceased, had, in his life time, subscribed the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars for the same object, and that, by his last will and testament, he appointed said Horace Staples executor of his last will and testament, and trustee of all his estate, which will was duly proved and approved; that, when the plaintiffs contracted with said Hawley & Wheeler, to erect said church, it was .mutually agreed between said Hawley & Wheeler, and said Staples & Adams, (said Staples & Adams being merchants, dealing in lumber and other articles,) that said Hawley & Wheeler would procure lumber and other materials for said church, in part, from said Staples & Adams, and that the bill of said Staples & Adams against said Hawley & Wheeler, for said lumber and other articles, should apply in payment, or part payment of said subscription of said Horace Staples, and the balance, if any, in payment, or part payment of said subscription of said Samuel Meeker; that, if the bill should amount to more than enough to pay said subscriptions, said Hawley & Wheeler should give an order on the plaintiffs for said balance, and that the society might pay said balance to said Staples & Adams, and charge the whole amount to said Hawley & Wheeler; that this arrangement was made known to the plaintiffs, and they assented to the same; that the only ground on which these defendants furnished said articles to said Hawley & Wheeler, was the arrangement aforesaid, and that they should not otherwise have allowed said Hawley & Wheeler to contract said debt, and that the amount of the debt due for the articles furnished as aforesaid, was, on the 5th day of June, 1853, $568.66.</p> <p>By legal continuances, said cause came before the court, at the April term thereof, in 1854, when a committee was appointed to find the facts.</p> <p>The report of said committee, among other facts, stated the following:</p> <p>The said Hawley & Wheeler, in said bill mentioned, and the plaintiffs, made a contract for the building of a church or meeting-house, for $4,750; said Hawley & Wheeler built said church or meeting-house, accordingly; the plaintiffs made to said Hawley & Wheeler, according to said contract, the first three payments therein provided for, but did not make to them or to their assignee, said French, the fourth payment therein provided for, and said French, as such assignee, claims of the plaintiff a further sum for extra work done to said church, by said Hawley & Wheeler. It was agreed by the plaintiffs, that there remained due from them, for the construction of said church, including all extra work done thereon, enough to pay the claims of all the other defendants against said Hawley & Wheeler, viz., all the defendants except said assignee, as set forth in said bill The question, whether there is any more due from the plaintiffs in the premises, and if so, how much, was left open and undetermined, inasmuch as no testimony in relation thereto was’laid before the committee.</p> <p>After the completion of said church, said Hawley assigned to Wheeler, all his interest in any moneys remaining due from the defendants in the premises, and subsequently, said Wheeler assigned all his interest therein, including thaf so assigned to him by said Hawley, to French, for the benefit of said Wheeler’s creditors, as in said bill alleged; said Hawley and said Wheeler were, at the commencement of this suit, bankrupt.</p> <p>On the completion of said church, viz., January 4th, 1853, there was due from said Hawley & Wheeler to said Staples & Adams, $570.67; to said John S. Hyde, at the same time, $100.55; to said Hezekiah Lockwood, at the same time, $29.94; at the same time, to said Charles W. Hall, $34; to said John Goodsell, $10.87; (the last item of his said claim having accrued on the 10th day of January, A. D. 1853;) to said Edgerton, $68; to said Daniel Burr, $40,30; to said Talcott B. Wakeman and Henry B. Wakeman, $136.70; and to said Elnathan Wheeler, $43.69; the last item of his said claim having accrued to him on the 29th day of December, 1852, which said sums were, due to said several persons for the causes and considerations, set forth by them respectively, in their respective answers. It was agreed, by the parties, that said Burr and said Hull were entitled to payment of said sums, by them respectively claimed, out of the moneys so due from the plaintiffs.</p> <p>Said contract, between said Hawley & Wheeler and the plaintiffs, was made, in behalf of the latter, by a building committee, consisting of several persons appointed by them, of which committee the regular society’s committee of the plaintiffs constituted a part, and all that was done by, or on behalf of, the plaintiffs, in respect to said church, its construction, or the payments made by them to said Hawley & Wheeler, was done by said building committee, and in the exercise of the powers given them by the plaintiffs.</p> <p>The committee found the allegations in the answer of Staples & Adams, as to the subscriptions of $250, and $150, to be true, and that it was verbally agreed between them and said Hawley &.Wheeler, as therein alleged, in regard to the payment of such claims as should accrue to said Staples & Adams. Said agreement was, long before the completion of said church, made known by both said Staples & Adams, and said Hawley & Wheeler, to said building committee, and verbally assented to by them. And on the 5th day of March, 1853, said Staples & Adams lodged in the office of said town-clerk of Westport, for record therein, a certificate of lien.</p> <p>It was found that the allegations in the answer of said T. B. and H. B. Wakeman, in relation to said subscriptions therein mentioned, were true, and that said H. B. Wake-man paid in the whole of his subscription, and said T. B. Wakeman all of his, except $65, which still remained unpaid ; that, after their said claim accrued to them, and long before the completion of said church, it was verbally agreed by and between said Wakemans and said Hawley & Wheeler, as in said answer alleged, in regard to the payment .of said claim, and that this agreement was, by the parties thereto, made known to said building committee, and verbally assented to by them.</p> <p>Said Elnathan Wheeler, on the 26th day of February, 1853, lodged with the town-clerk of said Westport, for record, a certificate of lien, as alleged in his answer, and said Edgerton, on the 31st day of January, 1853, lodged at the office of said town-clerk of Westport, for record, a certificate of lien, as alleged in his answer. The allegations of said John S. Hyde’s answer, as to the subscription therein mentioned, were found to be true.</p> <p>After the claims of said Hezekiah Lockwood and said Goodsell had accrued to them, and long before the completion of said church, it was verbally agreed by and between them, respectively, and said Hawley & Wheeler, that their said claims should be paid and satisfied by the plaintiffs, out of the moneys which should be due to said Hawley & Wheeler, from the plaintiffs, which agreement was made known to said building committee, and verbally assented to by them.</p> <p>Said Hawley & Wheeler and said claimants, viz., Staples & Adams, T. B. and H. Wakeman, Lockwood, Hyde, and Goodsell, by their said agreements, did intend, and did, so far as the same could be done by said agreement, appropriate for the use of said claimants, so much of the moneys in the hands of the plaintiffs, which should become due to said Hawley & Wheeler, from the plaintiffs, as should be necessary therefor in payment of their said claims.</p> <p>Said several agreements were communicated to the society, by a member of said building committee, who reported to said society the amounts payable according thereto, as being paid; said building committee, in assenting to said agreements, and in retaining moneys which had become due from the plaintiffs, for payment accordingly, and in all they did in the premises, acting on behalf of the plaintiffs. There was no evidence of any vote of the plaintiffs, in society meeting, nor of any distinct act in relation to said agreement, or said retention of moneys; but their attorney and counsel on the trial, in behalf of said society, expressed their assent to said agreement, as having been given in conformity with, said assent of said building committee, and recognized said retention of said moneys, by said committee, as the retention of the same by said society, for the purposes aforesaid. And the committee found that said society did, as a society, assent, and retain as aforesaid, and submitted to the court the question, whether said facts authorized said finding.</p> <p>The question, as to what decree should be passed in the case, was reserved for the advice of this court.</p>

This was a bill in- equity, alleging that the plaintiff had a mechanic’s lien, for the erection of a dwelling-house, barn, and privy, upon a certain lot of land, the fee of which was in the wife of the defendant, he having only a life interest therein; and praying for a foreclosure. The answer simply denied the truth of the matters averred in the bill. The case was referred to a committee, whose report embraced the following facts.

This was an action for a breach of promise to marry the plaintiff. The cause was tried at the term of the superior court, for the county of Fairfield, holden in February, 1855. On the trial it was proved, that the plaintiff was a servant girl, and the defendant a laboring man in a manufacturing establishment.

This was a bill in chancery, brought to the superior court, for Fail-field county, October term, 1854, to foreclose the defendants of the right of redemption in certain mortgaged premises.

This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for the district of Westport, making distribution of the estate of Seymour Taylor, deceased. On the 19th day of May, 1848, Seymour Taylor made his last will and testament, and died on the - day of March, 1850.

This was an action of slander, tried before the superior court, for the county of Fairfield, February term, 1855. The declaration contained six counts,—only two of which, the second and fifth, are material to the present case.

This was a bill to foreclose mortgaged premises. It alleged that, on the 4th of December, 1840, Arza Meeker was indebted to John L. Hill, since deceased, by two promissory notes of that date, one for the sum of $3,000, and the other for $2,900, both payable to Hill, on demand, with annual interest, and, to secure the payment of the notes, mortgaged to Hill a certain tract of land, situated in the town of Reading, containing 136 acres; that Arza Meeker afterward conveyed alb…

This was an action on the case, for negligence, on the part of the defendants, in the transportation, and delivery, of certain goods belonging to the plaintiff. The cause was tried on the general issue, at New Haven, October term, 1854. On the trial, it was admitted that the defendant was the owner of the steamer called the Traveller, and as such, a common carrier between the cities of New York and New Haven.

At the term of the superior court, for the county of New Haven, holden in October, 1853, Roswell Hood, the plaintiff, brought against the New York & New Haven Railroad Company, his bill in equity, which was substantially as follows: “The defendants, a corporation, transacting business in this state, and having an office in the town of Bridgeport, and a public depot at New Haven, for the reception of passengers, to be carried by them, and for the sale of tickets therefor,…

This was a bill in chancery, brought to the superior court for New Haven county, April term, 1854, to enforce the specific performance of a contract. Held: in accordance with the provisionsof said act, more than two-fifths of the ballots cast, were in favor of such repeal.

This was a bill in equity, brought by Edwin Smith, against the Naugatuck Congregational Society, and Roswell J. Brown. The plaintiff claimed a mechanic’s lien for materials and labor, furnished toward the erection of a church edifice, and brought the present bill for a foreclosure. The cause was referred to a committee, whose report embraced the following facts.