Volume 42 — Connecticut Reports

Trespass on the case for fraud in the exchange of a horse by the defendant for a yoke of oxen ; brought to the Court of' Common Pleas of Fairfield County and tried to the court, on tlie general issue, before FeForest, J. The court found the following facts: On the 15th of March, 1874, the plaintiff owned the pair of oxen in the declaration mentioned, which she had bought five years before for $190, and which she valued at $200, which were worth, as beef cattle, only $100.

The respondent demurred to the petition, and the case was reserved, upon the pleadings, for the advice of this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Bill in equity to compel the respondents, a joint stock corporation, to pay over certain dividends claimed to have been declared by the directors; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County. The following facts were found by the court. On the 29th day of March, 1864, the Bridgeport Spring Company was organized as a joint stock company, with a capital stock of $20,000, which it increased in the manner required by law in November following to the sum of $30,000.

Assumpsit for use and occupation of leased’ premises; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County and tried to tlie court, on the general issue with notice, before DeForest, J. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and motion for a new trial by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Petition for an injunction against tlie collection of a school district tax claimed to bo illegal; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County. Upon a demurrer the the court (Brewster, J.') dismissed the petition, and the petitioners brought the record before this court by a motion in error. The points of law decided will be sufficiently understood without a statement of the case.

Information in the nature of a quo warranto ; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County. The answer of the respondent was demurred to, and the case reserved upon the pleadings for the advice of this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Bill to foreclose a mortgage; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County. The respondents were F. Fellowes, the mortgagor, and Erastus Phelps, who claimed a prior builder’s lien upon the property. The following facts were found by a committee: On the 1st day of May, 1869, the premises in question were owned in fee by one Roswell 0. Smith.

Petition for a partition of certain real estate; brought to the Superior Court in Tolland County. Facts found and case reserved for advice. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Writ op Error from a judgment against the plaintiff in error in the Superior Court in Tolland County, on a grand-juror’s complaint for keeping intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same in violation of law, the case having been brought to that court by an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

<p>Application for a mandamus to compel a railroad company to resume its use of a passenger station upon its road which it had abandoned; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County. Answer by the respondents, demurrer to answer, and case reserved for'advice. The case is fully stated in the opinion.</p>

Bill op interpleader, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, against certain parties claiming interests, adversely to each other, in the amount of a life insurance policy payable by the petitioners. The following facts were found by the court upon the petition and the answers of the respondents.

Covenant broken, with a count in assumpsit for lands sold and conveyed; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County and tried to the court, on the general issue, before Briscoe, J. The following facts were found by the court. On the 6th day of March, 1873, the plaintiff and defendant exchanged lots of land by them respectively owned, in the city of Hartford, and each executed to the other a' warranty deed, in the usual form, conveying his lot.

Two actions of replevin for goods unlawfully detained; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford. The defendants had attached, as the property of W. F. Spencer, a son of the plaintiff, certain hotel furniture owned by the plaintiff and leased by him to the said W. F. Spencer. The City Court found the facts and rendered judgment for the defendants in both suits, and the plaintiff brought the cases before this court by motions in error.

Trespass on the case, for fraudulently contracting a debt; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Granger, J. Yerdict for the plaintiff, and motion for a new trial by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Information in the nature of a quo warranto, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County.

Ejectment; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County. The writ claimed $300 damages. The following facts were found by a committee. The plaintiff has been the owner in fee and in possession of the demanded premises from the 17tli day of June, 1856, until the present time, except that portion of the same of which he has been disseized by the defendant.

Petition for the foreclosure of a lien for materials furnished for a building; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County. The following facts were found by a com mittee: On the first day of June, 1872, Thomas B. Brooks of New Britain, owned and possessed the piece of land described in the petition, upon which and the building upon it the petitioner claims a lien.

Action by the treasurer of the State, upon a statute authorizing such suit, for a state tax claimed to be due from the defendants ; brought… Held: exercised and enjoyed by said corporation; and by said act of incorporation the duty was imposed upon them, after the aforesaid conveyance to them from said corporation, to construct and maintain bridges over said canal, and to keep the same and said canal in repairs, as by said act of incorporation making part of this plea will…

Assessment of damages to the respondents for the taking of a stream of water by the city of New Britain for public purposes, and a remonstrance by the respondents against the acceptance of the report of the assessing committee; before Judge Pardee of the Superior Court. Facts found on the remonstrance, remonstrance overruled and report accepted, and motion in error by respondents. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit, to recover the amount of a bill of exchange collected by the defendants for the plaintiffs; brought by appeal from a justice of the peace to the Court of Common Pleas for Hartford County. The defendants pleaded the general issue, with notice that the money in their hands had been attached by a process of foreign attachment by certain creditors of the husband, and had upon demand made upon an execution issued, been paid over to the officer holding the execution.

Assumpsit upon an award; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County, and tried to the court on the general issue before Briscoe, J. Pacts found and judgment rendered for the defendants, and motion in error by the plaintiff. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The appellant, in his reasons of appeal, stated his claim to be “ upon a promissory note made by said Latham in his life time, to wit, on the first day of March, 1871, by which he promised to pay, six months after date, to the order of C. B.' Mahan, agent, two hundred dollars at the First National Bank of Hartford, Ct., for value received in Granite mowing machines, which note was, before the payment thereof, and before it became due, to wit, on the second day of Mai’ch,…

Complaint by a prosecuting agent appointed under the act of 1874, which provides for the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquors and forbids their sale without a license; brought to the City Court of the city of Norwich, and by appeal of the defendant to the Superior Court for New London County. In this court the defendant demurred to the complaint, but the court (Hitchcock, J.,~) ovenuled the demurrer. The case was then tried to the jury and the defendant found guilty.

Trespass qu. cl. fr., brought to the Superior Court in New London County, and tried to the jury on the general issue with notice, before Sanford, J. On the trial the plaintiffs offered evidence to prove, that on the 4th day of January, 1872, and for some time before and ever since, they had been and wore the owners of the land described in the declaration, situated in the town of East Lyme, on which there stood, on the said 4th of January, a dwelling house known as the Ruel…

Trespass on the case; brought to the Superior Court in New London County, and tried to the jury on the general issue, before Hitchcock, J. Yerdict for the plaintiff, and motion for a new trial by tlie defendant for error in the charge of the court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Information in the nature of a quo warranto, brought to the Superior Court in New London County. The information charged the respondent with usurping the office of selectman of the town of .North Stonington. The respondent denied the usurpation and alleged in his plea that he was lawfully elected to the office.

Hull. The application alleged “ that at the annual meeting of said town, held on the first Monday of October, 1874, the said William B. Hull was legally chosen by said town to the office of first selectman of said town for the year then next ensuing ; and thereupon it became and was the duty of the said William H. Hillard, who was the town clerk of said town, to make a record of said choice in the records of said town; but the said Hillard has wholly disregarded his duty in…

Trespass on the case, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County.

Assumpsit, for services as a dentist; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court on the general issue, with notice of the infancy of the defendant, and that the services were not necessaries, before Robinson, J. The court found the following facts:— The defendant is a minor, aged fifteen, an orphan, and the owner of an estate valued at $60,000. Edward A. Cornwall, of Cheshire, has been for over 'ten years, and still is, his guardian.

Trespass for an assault and battery; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried to the court before Beardsley, J. Judgment for the plaintiff, and motion for a new trial by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Petition to a court of probate for the sale of real estate; brought by appeal to the Superior Court in New Haven County. Demurrer to the petition and reservation for advice. The-case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tbespass on the case for an injury to Maria L. Durand, one of the plaintiffs, by the negligent acts of the defendants, a railroad company, in the running of a train upon their road; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County.

Assumpsit on a special contract, with the common counts; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried to the court on the general issue before Beardsley, J. Judgment for the plaintiff and motion for a new trial by the defendant. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit, to recover a bill of freight; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court before Peck, J. The plaintiffs are a railroad company, and the defendants, at the time the bill accrued, were co-partners under the name of Goodwin & Buck, dealing in coal, at Unionville, upon the railroad of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs transported coal for the defendants at sundry times from November, 1873, to March, 1874.

Information for theft; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. The prisoner pleaded in bar certain proceedings upon a former information for the same offence and the Attorney for the State demurred to the plea, and the case was reserved for the advice of this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Trespass on the case, for an injury to the plaintiff in the occupation of his dwelling-house from offensive odors from a barn yard placed by the defendant near the plaintiff’s house ; brought to the City Court of the city of Waterbury, and tried to the jury, on the general issue, before Fields, J. The declaration contained two counts.

Assumpsit for work done and materials furnished; brought. to the Court of Common Pleas for New Haven County. The case was tried to the court on the general issue, with notice of a claim that the matter was res adjudicata.

Assumpsit, to recover the amount due on a note secured by a mortgage, the defendant having taken a conveyance of the mortgaged premises subject to the mortgage and with an assumption of the mortgage debt-; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County.

Trespass qu. cl. fr., brought, by appeal from a justice of tlie peace, to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court, on the general issue, with notice, before Robinson, J. The court rendered judgment 'pro formd for the plaintiffs and the defendant moved for a new trial. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

<p>A's -a general rule a new trial will not be granted to enable a party to recover nominal damages.</p> <p>Taxes are not a lien upon the land of a party taxed where he has other estate that can be found sufficient to pay the taxes.</p> <p>In an action upon a covenant against incumbrances, which it was claimed had been broken by the existence of a lien on the land for taxes due from the defendant, the latter may show under the general issue that he owned at the time such other estate.</p>

Information for burglary; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried to the jury on the plea of not guilty, before HitchcocJc, J. Verdict guilty, and motion for a new trial by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Ejectment ; brought to the Superior Court in Now Haven County, and tried to the jury on the general issue, before Robinson, J: Verdict for the plaintiffs and motion for a new trial by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The principal averments of the application were as follows :— That the applicant is, and for more than three years last past has been, an… Held: and that your applicant has no other remedy than can be furnished by the interposition of this court to enforce the rights so wrongfully withheld from him, prays this court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding said warden and burgesses to call a special meeting of the freemen of said borough at such time and place as this court…

Petition, by the executor of the will of Eugene A. Chat-field, for advice as to the construction of the will with respect to the widow’s right of dower; brought to the Superior Court in New-Haven County. The allegations of the petition were found true and the case reserved for advice. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Applications to the Superior Court in New Haven County for relief from assessments laid by the authorities of the city of New Haven for the paving of a street in the city. The following facts were found by a committee in the first named case. An order of the common council of the city of New Haven, providing for the laying of a wooden pavement in Union street from Court street to Wooster street, was passed on the 28th of September, 1870.

Petition for an injunction; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. The petitioners were Albert W.Guthrie, Ebenezer Guthrie and John B. Guthrie.

Bill to foreclose alien for materials furnished for buildings; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and reserved, upon facts found, for the advice of this court. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Tbespass on the case for an injury from a nuisance placed by the defendants in a public highway; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County.

Bill in equity to compel the specific performance of a contract to convey real estate; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County.

Trespass for taking and carrying away a horse claimed by the plaintiff to belong to his wife and to be held by him as her statutory trustee; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County.

<p>Upon a hearing before a committee on an application for the laying out of a highway, the committee may receive the opinions of witnesses having knowledge of the subject, as to the convenience and necessity of the proposed highway.</p> <p>And the respondent town may show its financial condition as a reason why the road should not be laid out.</p> <p>The expense of the construction and maintenance of the road is to be considered by the committee, and with it they should also consider the ability or inability of the town to bear the burden.</p>

<p>Replevin for goods unlawfully detained; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the jury, on the general issue, before Robinson, J.</p> <p>The goods in question had been purchased by the defendant of the plaintiff, and the latter claimed that they had been obtained by fraud. On the trial the plaintiff claimed, and offered evidence to prove, that he had had business dealings with the defendant for several years before the sale of the goods in question; that in the fall of 1873 the defendant, being then insolvent, represented to him that he was worth from $4,000 to $5,000 above his debts; that in October, 1874, the clerk and agent of the defendant represented to the plaintiff that the defendant was able to pay for these goods; that the defendant soon after bought the goods of the plaintiff,, and agreed to pay for them in carriages to be made by him; and that the defendant, when he made the agreement, knew that he was insolvent, and would be unable to perform the agreement or to pay for the goods. The defendant denied that the facts were so, and claimed that he was attached by his creditors soon after the purchase of these goods, and then made an assignment in bankruptcy.</p> <p>The plaintiff requested the court to charge the jury as follows: “ If an insolvent, who is carrying on business with knowledge that he can no longer continue it, and that his property is liable at any moment to be taken by his creditors, and that in that event he will not be able to pay for goods purchased on new credit, purchases goods upon credit without disclosing the circumstances to the vendor, his willful concealment thereof amounts to fraud, and his assignment passes no title in such goods to his assignor, and the vendor is entitled to his goods.” The court did so charge.</p> <p>The court also charged the jury as follows: “ If the defendant entered into the contract in good faith, that is, with the expectation and intent to pay, though he knew himself to be insolvent, yet the property passed to him, and the plaintiff cannot maintain this action. Intentional fraud at the time must be proved to-have existed in the mind of the defendant.</p> <p>“ The law’ is so that if these goods were obtained from the plaintiff by fraud of the defendant, it was no real contract of sale, and the plaintiff had a right to have them back again on demand; so that if, upon the evidence, and the law as I shall give it to you, you find that the defendant obtained these goods by fraud, then they still belong to the plaintiff, and after demanding them he would be entitled to replevy such of them as he could find and recover damages for the loss of the rest. In the first place, then, the presumption of law is that there was no fraud; the law presumes that every transaction is honest until it is proved otherwise; and this presumption of law the evidence must overcome before you can find that the defendant has been guilty of fraud. Again, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the fraud really existed, and unless by a preponderance of evidence the plaintiff has done this, and so done it as also to overcome the presumption of honesty of which I have spoken, then you must find that there has been no fraud on the part of the defendant. Furthermore, in a case where the fraud consists in making false representations, the person who makes them must either know -them to be false, or not know them to be true. A man may really believe a matter to be one way, when actually it is just the contrary, but he is not guilty of fraud or dishonesty by telling what he believes to be true, even though it actually turn out to be false. A man tells the truth when what he says corresponds to what he knows or believes, and a mistake made in good faith is not fraud. Moreover, the fraud must be connected with the sale in question in the relation of cause and effect, that is, the false representations must to some extent operate to bring about the contract, or else it cannot be avoided on their account. In this case, then, if you find that the defendant willfully made false representations about his solvency, you must also find that these representations induced the plaintiff to sell him these goods, or else there is no such fraudulent representation as you can consider in this action.</p> <p>“ But fraud may also consist in the suppression of truth as well as the statement of falsehood. Concealment is in some cases as much fraud as actual false statement. When a man is bankrupt and knows that he can not pay his debts, and that a debt which he may now incur will ndt be paid, he has no right to incur such debt; a man by contracting a debt holds himself out as willing and able to pay it, unforeseen circumstances excepted, and if clearly foreseeing that he can not pay, he thus holds himself out as able to pay, he is guilty of a false representation by act at least, and perpetrates a fraud; Ms very concealment of his real condition, coupled with the suggestion of ability to pay contained in his act of purchase, made knowingly and willfully, is fraudulent, and the sale so made is vitiated. Fraud of this kind is under the same rules as the other—the presumption of law is against it; the plaintiff must prove it; it must affect the sale complained of, or it is of no consequence in this case.</p> <p>“ To sum up, then, this portion of the case, unless you find that the defendant by his willful false representations, or by his fraudulent concealment, induced the plaintiff to sell him the goods, you will find that there was no fraud, and that so far the defendant is entitled to a verdict; if, however, you shall find that the goods were obtained from the plaintiff by fraud, and that consequently no title passed to the defendant, then the plaintiff had a right to retake them, and to recover damages for such as he might be unable to retake.”</p> <p>The jury having returned a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial for error in the charge of the court.</p>

Petition by one of the executors of the will of Alfred Platt, deceased, for advice as to the construction of the will; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. William S. Platt and Clark M. Platt, who were among the respondents, alone made answer to the petition, the former being a co-executor of the will with the petitioner. The following facts were found by a committee.

<p>Assumpsit against the defendant as executrix of Alexander 0. Coburn, upon an endorsement by him in his life time of a promissory note as guarantor; brought to the Court of Common Pleas ot New Haven County. The case was tried to the court on the general issue. The court found the following facts:</p> <p>On the 7th of February, 1868, one James H. Coburn gave the plaintiff the following note:</p> <p>“$237^. New Haven, February 7th, 1868.</p> <p>“ Four' years after date I promise to pay to William N. Clayton, or order, two hundred and thirty-seven ^04<j dollars, with interest from date, for value received.</p> <p>James H. Coburn.”</p> <p>This note was endorsed in blank “A. 0. Coburn,” being so endorsed bj the said Alexander O1. Coburn. All parties resided at the time in the city of New Haven, in this state, and A. 0. Coburn continued to reside there until his death, on the 28th of September, 1868. His estate was solvent, and the' defendant is sole executrix, devisee and legatee. The claim in suit was presented against the estate, and this action was brought within the time provided by statute. After the note in suit was made, James H. Coburn moved his family out of the state, and afterwards went west; and at the maturity of the note his residence was unknown to the plaintiff, except that about a year before its maturity the plaintiff was informed by James himself that he lived in New Jersey, and for aught that appeared to the contrary, the plaintiff could probably at any time, by inquiry of the defendant, or of the brothers of James, have ascertained his place of residence. On the day the note matured, February 10th, 1872, James lived in West Bergen, in the state of New Jersey, eleven miles from New York city, and was then, and for at least two weeks thereafter, able and willing to pay the note on presentation, with funds which he had provided and kept for that purpose at his house. He had no other property subject to attachment or execution in New Jersey, but he had with a banker in New York city funds sufficient to pay the note, and he would have paid it if it had been presented at any time within two weeks after its maturity. On the 12th of February, 1872, the plaintiff’s agent presented the note to one of James’s brothers in New Haven, by whom, acting therein for James, a prior note arising out of the same transaction, and similar in form and similarly indorsed, had been paid, and was then notified by the brother that James had left no funds with him to pay the note, but that he could be found at No. 200, Fulton street, New York city, at the office of James McGuire & Co. On the same day the plaintiff’s agent placed the note in a bank at New Haven, which sent’it to the First National Bank of New York city. The messenger of the First National Bank, on the 13tli of February, 1872, called at No. 20Ó, Fulton street, but could not find James, but left notice there for him, which was after-wards received. He thereupon returned the note to his bank, whence, on the 14th of February, 1872, it was sent to New Haven. On the same day, after it had been sent to New Haven, James called at the New York bank to pay the note. On the 14th the plaintiff’s agent, by letter, notified the defendant that the note was unpaid and that the estate was liolden, and on the 16th called on the defendant, who told him to go to the brother before mentioned, as he did all her business, and also on the brother, by whom he was told that James lived in West Bergen, New Jersey. On the 17th he went to New York city, to No. 200, Eulton street, and was there informed that James had not been in business there since January, but came occasionally to write letters, and would probably be there that day; also, that.he lived in West Bergen. The plaintiff’s agent did not go to West Bergen, but sent a letter there by mail, which was never received by James, and after calling several times that day at No. 200, Eulton street, returned to New Haven. Shortly afterwards James learned of the visit of the plaintiff’s agent. On the 19th of February, 1872, a suit was brought in Connecticut against James, garnisheeing his brother and the defendant, but the garnishee was found not indebted, and no property was found by the officer in his precincts to attach, and the action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.</p> <p>On the day of the maturity of the note James went to his former place of business, 143 Reade street, New York, and then to the National Park Bank, where he had formerly done business, for the purpose of paying the note. In the latter part of January, 1873, the plaintiff’s agent first heard a rumor that James had returned to Connecticut, and was living in' the town of Orange. He at once made inquiries to find out if such was the fact, and also where in Orange he was, if he was there at all; and upon learning that he was there and where he was, he at once, on the 6th of February, 1873, commenced another action against him, but no property was found. Judgment was obtained, which is wholly unpaid, and the execution has been returned unsatisfied. The plaintiff did not know, before the present action was brought, that James was able and willing to pay the note if the same had been presented to him in New York or New Jei’sey, or that he had funds therefor; nor did James, though he well knew the address of the plaintiff and that of his agent, who held the note for collection, communicate to either of them the fact of his ability or willingness to pay the note. James went out of business at No. 200, Fulton street, Jamiary 1st, 1872, and at the time when the note became due had no regular place of business, except at his house in West Bergen; and ho had made no arrangements to pay the note in Connecticut at any time, and had no property in Connecticut. The plaintiff has made no other attempt to collect the note, and the note and judgment thereon are still unpaid.</p> <p>Upon these facts the case was reserved for the advice of this court.</p>

Writ op error to reverse a decree of the Court of Common. Pleas of New Haven County, perpetually enjoining the plaintiff from collecting a judgment rendered in his favor against' the defendant by a justice of the peace; brought to this court. The defendant pleaded that there was no error. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit, for services as a physician; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County, and tried to the court on the general issue before Robinson, J. The court found the following facts: The defendants were owners of a steer, which, on the 20th day of August, 1874, attacked Mrs. Hendrickson, an old lady, in the street, and seriously injured her. She was taken insensible to the house of Mrs. Bienviennieu, where she' had a lodging.

Bill in equity for an account and an injunction; brought to tbe Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried before Beardsley, J. Bill dismissed, and motion in error by the petitioner. The points decided by the court will be sufficiently understood from the opinion without a statement of the facts, which would occupy much space.

Grandjuror’s complaint for selling intoxicating liquors without a license; brought to a justice of the peace, and by appeal of the defendant from the judgment of the justice, to the Superior Court in Litchfield County. In that court the case was tried to the jury, on the plea of not guilty, before Sanford, J., and the defendant found guilty, and afine of $50 was imposed by the court. He then moved in arrest of judgment on the following grounds: First.

The appellant had obtained a judgment against Caroline T. Walton, widow of Frederick A. Walton, late of Salisbury, in Litchfield County, for a debt which accrued after the death of the said Frederick, and had -levied an execution, issued upon the judgment, upon the dower interest of the said Caroline'in the real estate left by the said Frederick.

Bill in Equity for an injunction to restrain tlie authorities of the respondent town from taking possession of certain land for ■ burial purposes; brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County, and tried before Sanford, J. The following facts were found by the court.

Trespass on the case for a conspiracy to injure the plaintiff by certain fraudulent acts; brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County.

Trespass on the case for damage from the negligence of the defendants; brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County. The following facts were found by a committee. On the fifth of December, 1871, the plaintiff was the owner of the horse mentioned in the declaration, which was not less than eleven years old, and was kind, gentle, and safe for men and women to drive, except that he had a habit of pulling at his halter without adequate cause when hitched to a post.

Trespass on the case, for damage to a shad fishery of the plaintiff, by a dam erected by the defendants; brought to the District Court of Litchfield County. The defendants pleaded the general issue, with notice that the dam was built under authority of a resolution of the General Assembly, the same matter being also pleaded specially, and the plaintiff traversing the special pleas. The writ was dated August 13th, 1873; The court found the following facts.

Replevin for goods unlawfully detained; brouglit to the Superior Court in Litchfield County, and tried to the court on the general issue, with notice, before Sanford, J. The question in the case was, whether the plaintiff had title to, or a right to the possession of, a certain paper-box machine, known as a straw board cutter, and was entitled to recover the same of the defendant.

Petition for an injunction against the levy of certain tax warrants upon the real estate of the petitioner and the collection of certain taxes from his property; brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County. The respondent was tax collector of the town of Woodbury in Litchfield County, in which town the petitioner resided at the time his property was assessed and the taxes in question laid.

Debt upon a bond for the conveyance of real estate, with a count for money had and received; brought to the Superior Court in Tolland County. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of the condition of the bond set out in the declaration, and of his readiness and willingness to perform the same, but that the plaintiff had wholly neglected to perform or to tender performance on his part. The issue was closed to the court and the following facts found.

The petitioners made the application in the name of the State as Well as in their own. Held: was the treasurer of the petitioners and a managing business director, and that he was present at the meeting and knew that the vote was otherwise taken than by ballot, but that he was not there in his official capacity and character, and that his personal knowledge of the fact was not communicated to or known by the other directors,…

Cotton, deceased; taken to the Superior Court in Middlesex County.

Assumpsit for work done and money expended; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County. The following facts were found by an auditor to whom the case was referred. In January, 1870, Michael Brady, one of the plaintiffs, entered into a contract under seal with the defendants for the grading of a section of the Connecticut Western railroad and for masonry and other work to be done thereon.

Assumpsit, on the following note: “Hartford, September 2d, 1872. “One year after date I promise to pay to the order of Susan V. Hubbard, five hundred dollars, at the Hartford Trust Company, value received, with taxes, and interest at the rate of fifteen per cent, after maturity.

Assumpsit for money had and received; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County. Facts found and case reserved for advice. The point of law decided by the court will be sufficiently understood without a statement of the facts.

Bill to foreclose a lien for materials furnished for a building; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford. The following facts were found by the court, upon the petition and answer. One Joseph E. R. Pierce had taken of the respondents, a school district of the town of Hartford, the contract to build a school house upon land owned by the district.

Replevin for a cooking stove claimed to be unlawfully, detained; brought to tlie City Court of the city of Hartford, and tried to the court on the general issue, with notice, before-Sumner, J. The court found the following facts. For several months prior to December 4th, 1874, the plaintiff and his wife had been house-keeping, and had used the stove replevied in this action, which had been bought and paid for by the plaintiff.

Assumpsit for work done and materials furnished; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford, and tried to the court on the general issue, with notice of a set-off, before Sumner, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and motion in error by the defendant. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Assumpsit, for services rendered at the request of the defendants; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County, and tried to the jury, on the general issue, before Briscoe, J. On the trial it was proved that in January, 1878, one Middleton, a boy fourteen years of age, was in the employment of the defendants, a corporation engaged in the manufacture of hardware, at their factory in New Britain, and while at work at a milling machine his arm was severely injured…

Information in the nature of a quo warranto, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, by the Attorney for the State, at the relation of Josiah J. White and William H. Goodspeed, charging the respondents with having usurped sundry offices of a corporation. The case was heard upon the information and the answer of the respondents, before Martin, J. The court found the following facts.

Assumpsit upon a note; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County. Facts found and case reserved for advice. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Libel for freight money; tried in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, August Term, 1873. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

United States Circuit Court, District of Connecticut. Before Shipman, J., in chambers. A bill for a permanent injunction had been filed September 11th, 1875, and on the same day the present motion was made, pending the hearing on which an ex parte injunction was granted. Th¿ facts are fully stated in the opinion.