Volume 34 — Connecticut Reports

Trespass on the case for an injury to the plaintiff by the falling upon her of a dead limb from a tree in a public square in the city of New Haven; brought to the superior court in New Haven county.

Assumpsit, on a guaranty given by the defendant for the payment for goods sold by the plaintiff to one J. L. Day, brought to the superior court in New Haven county. By the bill of particulars it appeared that a large part of the articles sold was spirituous liquors. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice that he should claim that he was not liable upon his guaranty for the liquors sold, such sale being prohibited by law.

Highway petition, brought in the superior court for New Haven county. ' Motion by the petitioners for a new trial upon their remonstrance against the acceptance of an adverse report of the committee. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Writ of error, brought to the superior court in New Haven county from the judgment of a justice of the peace, in an action of trespass quare clausum, fregit brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error.

Trespass quare clausum fregit, brought before a justice of the peace in New Haven county, the writ demanding fifty dollars damages. The defendants pleaded the general issuq, with notice that they should claim and prove a right of way over the land in question, and that the acts claimed to be a trespass were done in the reasonable exercise of the right. The justice rendered judgment for one dollar damages and $18.18 costs, and the defendants appealed to the superior court.

Action on the statute (Gen. Statutes,-p. 202, sec. 544,) which gives a right of action to the executor or administrator of a deceased person killed by the negligence of a railroad company, for the benefit of the wife and children or heirs of the deceased; such suit to be brought within one year after the cause of action arises.

Bill to redeem mortgaged premises, brought to the superior court holden in New Haven county. The following facts were found by the court. On the 27tli Upon these facts the superior court, (Pardee, J,,~) granted the prayer of the petition, and the respondent brought the record before this court by motion in error. 1.

Assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff as executor of Stephen H. Nichols for the use and occupation of premises leased to the defendant by the testator in his life time — the occupation being after the death of the testator and during the term covered by the lease.

Bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage of a steam engine and appurtenances, brought to the superior court in New Haven county, by the petitioners, who were a joint stock corporation. The following facts were found by the court upon the bill and answer. In the year 1860 the petitioners were manufacturing at Bridgeport stationary steam engines, and the respondent was manufacturing carriages at New Haven by steam power.

Petition under the flowage act, praying for authority to raise a mill dam above its existing height, and for the assessment of damages to the several respondents, whose lands would be overflowed thereby.

Debt upon a bond given by the defendants to guarantee the payment of notes made or-endorsed by the North Middle-sex Quarry Company and discounted for the company by the plaintiffs. Held: resulted from the legal unity and identity of the obligees. In that case the bond became absolute, notwithstanding the condition upon which the obligor delivered it was not complied with.

Petition for an injunction, brought to the superior court for Litchfield county. The petition alleged the following facts. Held: the following resolution was passed : — “ Resolved, that the. votes taken at the meeting of the 9th of January, 1865, be reconsidered and rescinded.” That no person entered the military service of the United States upon the credit of the town or was drafted into- the service from the town, or furnished a substitute who was credited…

Debt, on a guardian bond given to a judge of probate by the defendant Elihu Phelps as principal and the defendant Harvey Holcomb as surety, for the faithful discharge by the said Phelps of the office of guardian of one Mary Ann Belden, a minor, and for the rendering of a true account of his guardianship. The case was brought to the superior court in Litchfield county. The defendants pleaded performance generally, to which the plaintiff replied assigning breaches.

Grandjuror’s complaint before a justice of the peace, charging the defendant with placing nuisances on a certain highway in the town of New Milford, in Litchfield county. The complaint contained two counts, one charging the placing of a building and the other of a quantity of stone and a stick of timber on the highway.

Information for theft, tried to the jury in the superior court in Fairfield county, on the plea of not guilty, before Loomis, J. The information contained three counts, all describing the same property, one of which alleged it to be the property of Clapp Spooner, and the others of the Adams Express Company, a corporation.

Information for an assault and battery upon one Philo Foot, tried to the jury, on a plea of not guilty, in the superior court in Fairfield county, before Pardee, J. On the trial the attorney for the state offered evidence to prove, and it was not denied, that on the 27th day of February, 1866, Philo Foot, then seventy-nine years of age, was, and for the three years preceding had been, a pauper of the town of Danbury ; that Hull, one of the defendants, was the keeper of the…

Action on the statute “ concerning highways and bridges,” which gives a right of action for injuries received by means of any defective bridge or road against the town or other corporation which ought to keep the same in repair; brought by the plaintiff as administratrix of James Hewison, deceased, to the superior court in Fairfield county.

Action on the case for the negligence of the defendant as a common carrier, in the transportation of two boxes of dressed poultry from Bridgeport to New York for the plaintiffs ; brought to the superior court in Fairfield county.' The declaration contained several counts, the fourth of which was as follows:— And the plaintiffs further say that they, at the special instance and request of the defendant, on the 13th of May, 1864, at Bridgeport aforesaid, caused to be delivered…

Ejectment, brought to the superior court in Hartford county ; tried on the general issue closed to the court before Loomis, J. The court found the following facts. On the 10th of February, 1854, the premises in question, situated in Windsor Locks, in Hartford county, with other land adjoining the same, were owned by George Benjamin, subject to a mortgage to Lucius B. Chapman for the sum of $350.

Replevin for two horses attached by the defendants as the property of one Everett E. Dudley,’ brought to the superior court in Hartford county, and tried on a plea denying the title of the plaintiff, the issue being closed to the court, before Carpenter, J. The following facts were found by the court. The plaintiff bought, in the year 1887, for the benefit of his parents, a farm in Bloomfield, which he still owns.

Amicable submission to the superior court in Hartford county on an agreed statement of facts; reserved for the advice of this court. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Replevin suit, brought to the superior court in Hartford county. The defendant filed the following plea in abatement. “ Samuel C. Wilcox vs. Francis Chambers.

Scire Facias, brought to the superior court in Hartford county, in a proceeding of foreign attachment in that court in which the defendant had been factorized. The writ was-signed and issued by a justice of the peace. The statute with regard to foreign attachment provides that “ a scire facias may be taken out from the clerk of the court where the judgment was rendered.” The defendant appeared and pleaded the general issue with notice.

Assumpsit, brought to the superior court in Hartford county, for the breach of a contract by which the defendant guaranteed to the plaintiff the title and priority of a mortgage assigned by the former to the latter.

Writ of error, to reverse a decree of foreclosure passed by the superior court in Hartford county, (Carpenter, J.') The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The appeal was in the following form :— “ At a court of probate holden at New Britain, Ac. Estate of Linus Beckley, late of Berlin, in said District, deceased. Levi Derning, of Berlin, in Hartford county, Connecticut, appears in court and complains that he is aggrieved by the decree of said court, made on the 2d day of October, 1865, extending the time for the presentation of claims against said estate, from the 7th day of July.

Bill in equity, brought to the superior court in Hartford county.

Bill in Equity, brought to the superior court in Hartford county, by the state as owner of non-transferable stock in the Hartford Bank,… Held: it was resolved that the bank would reorganize itself as a national bank, if upon a vote taken a majority of two-thirds of the stockholders, required by the act of Congress for such a purpose, should vote in favor of it; and that the vote be taken by the entry by each stockholder, or his attorney, of his name and vote in a book to be…

Trespass, for taking and carrying away a horse of the plaintiff, with a count in case for the injury of the horse by want of care and improper treatment while in the defendant’s possession; brought originally before a justice of the peace and appealed by the defendant to the superior court in Litchfield county.

<p>Assault and battery, brought to the superior court in Litchfield county, and tried on the general issue, with notice, closed to the court, before Pardee, J. The court found the following facts:—</p> <p>In the year 1860, the plaintiff lived with his wife and their three minor children, in the state of New Jersey. In that year his wife left him, taking with her the three children, and during the last six years she and the children have resided in the town of Plymouth, in this state. The plaintiff obtained a divorce from her in the year 1860, and from that time to the 18th day of November, 1865, did not furnish any support for the children or ask for their custody, although he knew where they were. In March, 1865, the defendant asked the mother if her son William, the eldest of the children, and about thirteen years of age, might live with him. She said he might if he chose to. The son said he would go, and went to live with him, and continued with him until about the 18th of November, 1865.. At this time the plaintiff, being in the town of Bristol, adjoining the town of Plymouth, employed two men to go to Plymouth and bring the boy to him. They drove to Plymouth, and finding the boy in the street, asked him to ride. He got into the carriage, and they drove towards Bristol, passing by the defendant. As they passed him the boy called to him repeatedly to save him.. The defendant, hearing his cry, immediately took a horse and wagon, and followed the carriage to Bristol. The boy was delivered to the plaintiff. The defendant came up immediately after, and endeavored to take the boy from him by force, in doing which he committed the assault and battery set forth in the declaration.</p> <p>The court upon these facts found the issue for . the plaintiff, and rendered judgment for him to recover three hundred dollars damages and his costs. The defendant moved for a new trial.</p> <p>It appears by the record that no unnecessary force was used by the defendant, so that the only question is, whether he had a right to use reasonable force to recover possession of the boy.</p> <p>I. The defendant was clothed with all the rights which the mother and the boy could jointly confer. The boy had attained an age of considerable discretion, and under the circumstances oí the case his wishes were of importance in the matter of his own custody. Matter of Woolstonecraft, 4 Johns. Ch. 80 ; Commonwealth v. Hammond, 10 Pick., 274. If that choice was wisely exercised, as the record shows it to have been, it will be sanctioned by the court. Nichols v. Giles, 2 Root, 461; People v. Mercein, 8 Paige, 47 ; Prather v. Prather, 4 Dessau., 38. The plaintiff surely could gain no greater rights by force, than by regular and due process of law. His remedy was by habeas corpus, a remedy commensurate with his right. The father has in no case a vested right to the exclusive custody of a child. State v. Smith, 6 Greenl., 462.</p> <p>2. The father had fully emancipated the boy. He had abandoned all his duties towards him, and must, consequently, be held to have relinquished all his rights over him. The rights and duties of parent and child are reciprocal. The right of the parent, says Judge Peters, in Morse v. Welton, 6 Conn., 350, “is bottomed on his duty to maintain, protect and educate. But this right and this duty may be transferred to another and may be relinquished to the child.” 1 Bla. Com., 472 ; 1 Swift Dig., 41, 61; Varney v. Young, 11 Term., 260 ; Nightingale v. Withington, 15 Mass., 274; Reeve’s Dom. Rel., 294. But during six years the plaintiff, although he knew where the boy was, had furnished him no support, and had not claimed the custody of him. He had by his course of conduct, tacitly at least, emancipated the boy. The emancipation may be tacit. Whiting v. Earle, 3 Pick., 201; Smith v. Smith, 30 Conn., 111. Absence or neglect of the parent or tacit acquiescence work emancipation. Canovar v. Cooper, 3 Barb., 117. The father may surrender the care and custody of a child to the mother. Wodell v. Goggeshall, 2 Met., 92. If the father separates from the mother, and permits the child to leave him, and go with her, he is no longer entitled to the earnings of the child, and has no power to avoid his reasonable contracts. 1 Parsons Oont., 257. Consequently he cannot forcibly, and without notice, at his own volition, resume the custody of such child. The interests and feelings of others, as well as those of the child, are to be regarded and protected. And there was here a valid contract implied by law for services in recompense for nurture and education, between the defendant qu the one hand and the boy. and his mother on the other. By established usage, in Connecticut at least, the phrase “to live with another,” when employed in such a connection, implies such a contract. Beeve Dom. Bel., 292. And this contract the father could not set aside.</p>

Assumpsit, to recover for supplies furnished to one Anna Peters, claimed to be a pauper ; brought to the superior court in Litchfield county, and tried on the general issue closed to the court before Pardee, J. It appeared that the person claimed to be a pauper possessed a dower estate in a small quantity of land and was entitled to the life use of certain other real estate, the annual income or value of which was found by the court to be insufficient for her support, and…

<p>Action on the ease, tried before a justice of the peace and a jury under the act of 1866, the writ claiming fifty dollars damages. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendants and an appeal was moved for by the plaintiff and allowed by the justice, and the case brought to the superior court in Litchfield county.</p> <p>The record of the judgment and appeal by the justice was as follows:—</p> <p>“At a justice court held at New Milford, in the county of Litchfield, on the 18th day of February, 1867, present Charles B. Camp, justice of the peace for said county, holding said court — Lucius Jackson, of New Milford, against the New Milford Toll Bridge Company, located at said New Milford; in an action on the case demanding fifty dollars damages, with costs, as per writ on file, dated January 30th, 1867. The parties appeared and were at issue on a question of fact, as on file, and thereupon the defendants moved for a jury to try said cause. * * * * The jury, after heai'ing the evidence, arguments of counsel and charge of the court, brought in a verdict for the defendantsj as on file, which verdict is accepted by this court and judgment is rendered for the defendants, and that they recover of the plaintiff their costs, taxed at $63.98, as on file, and that execution issue for the same accordingly. At a subsequent meeting of the parties before me on the 25th day of February, 1867, for the purpose of considering a bill of exceptions, the plaintiff, having previously, on the 18th day of February, 1867, talked of the same, moved for an appeal to the superior court, to be held at Litchfield, within and for the county of Litchfield, on the second Tuesday of April, 1867, and offers sufficient bonds for prosecution, which appeal is now allowed, and the said Lucius Jackson as principal, and Levi S. Knapp, of said New Milford, as surety, are recognized to the adverse p^rty in the sum of one hundred dollars, conditioned that the appellant shall prosecute this appeal to effect and answer all damages in case he fail to make his plea good. Charles B. Camp, Justice of the Peace.”</p> <p>In the superior court the defendants filed the following plea in abatement:—</p> <p>“The appellees in court pray judgment of said appeal, that the same may abate and be dismissed, and they no longer held to answer the same, because they say that the appellant brought his said action before Charles B. Camp, Esq., justice of the peace for said county, pursuant to an act entitled ‘An act in alteration of an act relating to justice courts,’ approved June BOth, 1866, demanding fifty dollars damages and costs; and an issue in fact being joined before said justice court, said cause was tried by a jury, as provided by the second section of said act; and the issue being found for the defendants by the jury, judgment was by said justice , court rendered thereon for the defendants to recover of the plaintiff their costs, taxed and allowed at $63.98; all which, by the files and records of said justice court into this court brought by the appellant, at large appears. Wherefore and because the judgment so rendered was in favor of the defendants, and was only for costs of suit, and for no debt or damage whatever, the defendants say that said judgment is final and no appeal allowable therefrom. Wherefore they pray judgment that said appeal abate and be dismissed.</p> <p>“And for further ground of abatement the appellees in court pray judgment of said appeal, that the same may abate and be dismissed, and they be no longer held to answer the same, because they further say that said appeal was moved for and allowed a long time after said case was closed and finished by said justice and said judgment rendered, and a long time after the right to appeal had expired, to wit, one week after said case had been closed by said justice, and said judgment rendered, and such right to appeal had expired ; whereas said appeal should have been taken at the rendition of said judgment. All which, by the files and records of said justice court, into this court brought by the appellant, at large appears. Wherefore they pray judgment that said appeal abate and be dismissed.”</p> <p>To this plea the plaintiff demurred, and the questions arising on the pleadings were reserved for the advice of this court.</p>

<p>Assumpsit, for supplies furnished to a pauper claimed to belong to the defendant town ; brought to the superior court in Litchfield county. The following statement of- facts was agreed on by the parties.</p> <p>Stephen Monson, Sen., having a legal settlement in the town of Plymouth, removed from that town to the state of Ohio, about the year 1832, and subsequently gained a settlement there, having taken with him his son Stephen Monson Jr., who also, in right of his father, acquired a settlement in Ohio, and who was born in Plymouth during his father’s settlement there, and who at the time of removing to Ohio, and when his father gained a settlement there, was a minor aged about eigh^ years. They remained in Ohio about three years, and then "returned to Plymouth, where they lived several years. After his return from Ohio Stephen Monson, Jr., gained no new legal settlement in any town in this state in his own right, nor did his father during his minority, nor has any settlement other than the one prior to 1832 been gained by either of them in Plymouth, unless conferred by the statute law of Connecticut upon these facts. The pauper to whom the supplies were furnished, was the minor daughter and legitimate issue of Stephen Monson, Jr., and of Mary his wife. Stephen Monson, Jr., was married to the said Mary in the year 1843, and before and at the time of the marriage she had a legal settlement in some town in this state other than the town of Plymouth.</p> <p>The case was reserved upon these facts for the advice*of this court.</p>

Assdmpsit for cattle sold to the defendants; brought to the superior court in Litchfield county and tried on the general issue closed to the court before Sail, I The court found the following facts and made the finding a part of the record.

Grandjuror’s complaint for a breach of the peace, under the statute (Gen. Statutes, tit.

Information for theft and embezzlement, in the superior court in Hartford county; tried to the jury on the plea of not guilty, before Pardee, J. The first count of the information, which was for theft, was as follows:— That heretofore, to wit, on or about the 4th day of September, 1866, at the town of Hartford in said county, Charles D. Tuller of said Hartford, with force and arms, ten bonds of the United States, issued by authority of and under the laws of the United…

Appeal to the superior court from a decree of the court of probate for the district of Hartford, allowing and settling the account of the executors of the will of Alonzo S. Beckwith, deceased. The following facts were found by the court.

Bill of interpleader, brought by the petitioners, a life insurance company, to compel the respondents to contest between themselves and have adjudicated their respective claims to a sum of money due to one of them from the petitioners, on a policy of insurance on the life, of George Kendall, deceased, in favor of his wife and children.

Bill in equity, brought by the petitioner as trustee of the insolvent estate of Royal P. Pratt, to set aside a conveyance of real and personal property made by the insolvent to the respondent and which was claimed to be void against the creditors of the insolvent; brought to the superior court in Hartford county, and referred to a committee by whom the following facts were found.

Bill in equity, brought by the petitioners, a joint stock corporation. to the superior court for Hartford county, to compel the specific performance of a contract to assign a patent right. The superior court (Loomis, J.) passed a decree in favor of the petitioners, and the respondents filed a motion for a new trial and a motion in error. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Bill in equity, brought to the superior court in Hartford county, to compel the conveyance of certain real estate standing in the name of the respondent. The land in question had been mortgaged by Robbins & Lawrence to Charles Pox and John Henderson, of London, England, and by them conveyed to the respondent with an assignment of the mortgage and the mortgage debt, and the respondent had foreclosed Robbins & Lawrence, and was in possession.

Bill in equity for an account, a discovery, and a settlement of a partnership account; brought to the superior court in Hartford county, and referred to a committee, who made the following report: Prior to the year 1825 there was a partnership in the business of peddling clocks, subsisting between Giles Tillotson, Shubael Tillotson, Oliver Tillotson, and Romania Tillotson, all then of Avon, in this state.

Bill for an injunction against the use of a fishing pound by the respondents to the obstruction of that of the petitioner previously established, brought to the superior court in Middlesex county.

Action on the statute “ concerning highways and bridges,” for an injury upon a highway which was unsafe and defective from want of a railing; brought to the superior court in Middlesex county. The defendants demurred to the declaration, the demurrer was overruled, and the case heard in damages. Upon this hearing the court found the following facts.

Trespass, and trespass on the case, appealed to the superior court in Middlesex county from the judgment of a justice of the peace. ' The declaration, which contained two counts, was as follows: In a plea of trespass, whereupon the plaintiff declares and says, that on the 8th day of January, 1866, he, the plaintiff, for a good and valuable consideration, to be paid him by the town of Haddam, undertook and agreed with said town to keep in good and sufficient repair for the…

Trespass for breaking into and entering the dwelling house of the plaintiffs, by the defendant and his servants, and disturbing the plaintiffs and their families in their possession of the same; to which was joined the following count in case:— The plaintiffs further declare, in an action on the case, for the same cause of action as in said first count contained, and say that the defendant, not having any reasonable or probable cause, wrongfully and unjustly contriving and…

Assault and battery, brought to the superior court in New Haven county, and tried to the jury before Loomis J. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial for error in the charge of the court. The points of law involved in the case will be sufficiently understood from the opinion of the court, without a statement of the facts, which would occupy much space and could not be well understood without a plan of the premises.

Trover for a wagon, brought to the superior court in New Haven county, and tried on the general issue before Phelps, J. On the trial the plaintiff claimed to have proved that in September, 1862, he was the absolute owner of the wagon in question; that he then let it to one Basset-, for an indefinite time, at $3 per week; that a few weeks subsequently both Basset and the wagon disappeared; that in the spring following the plaintiff learned that Basset had been seen in Derby,…

Ejectment: tried in the superior court in New Haven county, and reserved on a finding of facts for the advice of this court.

Application to the superior court in New Haven county for a mandamus against the selectmen and town clerk of the town of New Haven, to compel them to admit the petitioner to the privileges of an elector. The petition was as follows : To the superior court now in session Ac.

Assumpsit, to recover for money loaned to the defendant and money paid for her use, brought to the superior court in New Haven county and tried to the jury, on the general issue, before Loomis, J. ■ The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiffs moved for a new trial for errors in the charge of the court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Trespass, for entering upon land on the shore of Long Island Sound, and taking and carrying away sea weed therefrom ; reserved by the superior court on a finding of the facts for the advice of this court. The facts are fully stated in the opinion.

Leger, taken to the superior court in Eairfield county; tried to the jury before Phelps, J. The following reasons of appeal were filed by the appellants : “ 1. That the said William St. Leger never signed, sealed, and published said paper writing in question, as his last will and testament. “ 2.

Action on the case for fraud in the sale of the business of the defendant as of a practicing physician, tried to the jury in the superior court, on the general issue, before Granger, J. The declaration alleged that the defendant falsely represented to the plaintiff that his practice as a physician was worth between $6,000 and $7,000 per year; that it was the regular allopathic practice, and that he was, and had been doing a legitimate business; when, in fact, his practice…

Action on the case for the refusal of the defendant, as moderator of an electors’ meeting in the town of Greenwich, on the 8th day of November, 1864, to allow the plaintiff, a qualified elector, to voto; tried to the jury in the superior court on the general issue, before Granger, J. Upon the trial it was admitted that the name of the plaintiff was upon the perfected registry list of the town and upon that used at the polls; that upon the plaintiff’s offering to vote his…

Bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The mortgage was given by the respondents to the petitioners, who were partners under the name of Harding- Brothers & Company, to secure the following contract: “ The said Mill River Woolen Manufacturing Co. agrees to consign to said Harding Brothers & Co., for sale on commission, their stock of manufactured goods now on hand, and also the entire production of the manufacturing establishment now carried on by them at said Stamford,…

Trespass quare clausum fregit, for entering upon a mill pond, which, with the soil under it, the plaintiff claimed to own, and taking and carrying away ice from the surface of the pond ; tried to the jury in the superior court on the general issue before Hinman, C. J. Upon the trial the plaintiffs offered in evidence sundry deeds under which they claimed title to the locus in quo, which the court pro forma instructed the jury gave them no title to the soil nor exclusive…

Action on the case for an injury to the land of the plaintiff by the turning of surface water upon it, by the defendant from his adjoining land; brought to the superior court in New London county and tried to the jury before Park, J. The jury having rendered a verdict for the defendant the plaintiff moved for a new trial for error in the charge of the judge. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit on a -warranty of the- soundness of certain hogs sold by the defendants to the plaintiff, with the common counts in general assumpsit; brought to the superior court in New London county, and tried to the jury pn the general issue, before Park, I. On the trial it was proved and admitted that on the 20th of September, 1866, the plaintiff bought of the defendants eleven live hogs, after seeing and examining them, and paid the sum of $210 therefor, and” took immediate…

Action on the case, for an injury to Daniel Burlce, caused by the negligence of the defendants, brought by his administratrix, to the superior court in New London county, and tried to the jury on the general issue, before Butler, J. On the trial it appeared and was conceded that the defendants were engaged in the general business of transporting-passengers and freight from Norwich to Worcester and intermediate places, and coal formed a. considerable item of the freight.

Assumpsit ; tried to tlie jury iu the superior court before Sanford, J. The case involved the question of the validity of the will of Thomas Sanford as a will of personal property, the will containing devises of real estate which were void by reason of the attestation of the will by two witnesses only. It was dated Nov. 21, 1846.

Writ op error to reverse a judgment of a justice of the peace.

It appeared on the trial that Aaron Husted by his will gave all his property, real and personal, to his son Mills H. Husted, subject to the dower of his widow in the real estate. He died in 1857, and from that time she lived in the family of the son on the land until his death, and after that with his widow, on the same place, until her application in 1864 to have her dower set out.

Trespass quare clausum fregit; tried to the jury before Sanford, J. Yerdict for the plaintiff, and motion for a new trial by the defendant for error in the refusal of the judge to charge the jury as requested. The points decided will be sufficiently understood from the opinion, without a statement of the facts.

Ejectment, tried before Sanford, J. Motion for new trial by defendant. The case will be sufficiently understood without a statement of the facts.

<p>Motion for a new trial by defendant, from a judgment of the superior court, ( Sanford, /.) The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.</p>

Bill for a foreclosure of a mortgage, brought by the petitioners as administrators of Zadoc P. Leach, deceased. The mortgage was to secure the sum of $2000 and was given by the respondent .Nutt to the said Leach. The defence was made by the other respondent, Charles Hull, who held a later mortgage on the same property. The following facts were found by a committee.

Bill in equity to compel the respondents to execute a lease to the petitioner. The facts were found by a committee. The petitioner, on the 18th day of April] 1862, leased of one William Daskam a store in the town of Norwalk for a term of five years from Apiil 1st 1862, at a yearly rent of $150, payable quarterly and at the expiration of each quarter.

Trespass de bonis asportatis, for taking away a barn and the stone piers upon which it stood, with a count in trover, tried upon the general issue, closed to the court. The following facts were found by the court. Hanford N. Hayes in the spring of 1858, erected the barn in question on a vacant building lot in Bridgeport, owned by him in fee.

Writ of error to reverse a judgment of a justice of the peace upon a lessor’s complaint under the statute with regard to summary process for recovering possession of leased premises; brought to the superior court in New London county.

Case, for an injury to a mill and a mill-site of the plaintiffs by the flowing of the same by the defendants, owners of a lower dam and mill; brought to the superior court in New London county, and tried to the jury on the general issue before Park, J. > The parties were both corporations. The plaintiffs claimed title under a lease for twenty years from Ebenezer Waldo and Elizabeth Waldo, dated Dec. 9,1865.

■ Assumpsit, to recover a dividend declared by the defendants, a corporation, of which the plaintiff was a stockholder; brought to the superior court in New London county, and tried on the general issue with notice before Park J. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants moved for a new trial. on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence.

Assumpsit on a lost note,.broüglit to the superior court in Wiudham county. The facts were found by the court and the case reserved for the advice of this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

<p>A voluntary assignment by a debtor under tbo insolvent law of the state held valid, although the United States bankrupt act was in existence and applicable to the ease at the time of the assignment.</p> <p>And the proceedings of the probate court in administering upon the insolvent estate so assigned held valid.</p> <p>Such an assignment is good at common law, without the aid of the statute. ■</p>

Action on the case for an injury to the plaintiff, a passenger on a steamboat of the defendants, through the negligence of the defendants ; tried to the jury before Shipman, J. The case is sufficiently stated in the charge of the judge to the jury.

Assumpsit on a policy of insurance. Verdict for the plaintiffs and motion for a new trial by defendants. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

<p>A policy insured the holder against death or injury “ by violent and accidental means, within the meaning of the contract and conditions annexed.” The conditions specified sundry modes of violent injury and death which were excluded from the scope of the policy. Held that these specific exclusions did not operate to make the principal terms more largely inclusive, but that the death or injury, though violent, must still fall strictly within the principal terms, and be caused by means that were accidental as well as violent.</p> <p>"Where a person insured by such a policy was injured internally by jumping in great haste from a railroad car at a station, and running a considerable distance, but which action was not necessary to his safety, but was voluntarily undertaken to effect an important object, which required haste, it was held that the injury was not caused by “ accidental means,” within the meaning of the policy.</p>