Volume 5 — Day's Connecticut Reports

THIS was an action on a policy of insurance to recover for a loss of the cargo of the ship Franklin.

THIS was an aciion of trespass, (juarc clausum fregit. The declaration slated, that the defendant entered upon the plaintiff's land, dug up the soil, and destroyed the sedge, herbage, &c. growing thereon, and took therefrom great (juantilies of oysters, clams, and other shell-fish.

UOTIOV for a new trial. Thiii was an action on, the case. It was alleged in the declaration, that on or about the 20th day of May, 1807, the plaintiffs owned and possessed a certain bill of exchange, drawn by George Crudm at Barbadoes, on James Barclay, Esq. of London, payable to A.‘T, Brown of Antigua, or his order, sixty days after sight, for two hundred twenty-five pounds sterling, bearing date the 3d day of Juné, 1806 ; which bill, on or about the 3d day of June, 1806,…

<p>error.</p> <p>THIS was an action of debt, brought against the defendant, as executor of the last will and testament of Noyes Palmer, deceased, on a bond executed by the deceased, in Ms life time, to the nlaintiff. A condition was annexed to the bond, which was recited at large in the declaration, and was of the following tenor, vis. “ That whereas, -some unhappy differences have arisen, and now exist between the said John Nichols and Sarah Nichols, his wife; ami they the said John and Sarah having finally concluded and determined to separate, to live ever hereafter, in a complete stale oí separation ; and that he the said John Nichols, should deliver np to the said Nones Palmer, as trustee to the sail! Sarah, ah the property that the said Sarah hrousihi with her at lh-time of her intermarriage with him the ¡-aid John, ri~, he' household furniture that is now in being. and all the mouiev which the said John Nil hols hath received as (lie property of said Sarah, since their marriage, excepting ItiO dollars,, which the said Nichols hath paid out and expended ii. certain suits at law, and for dents due from them the said John Nichols, on account of life intermarriage with her the said Sarah ; said property to be by biin the said Noyes Palmer, held in trust, as trustee to the said Sarah, and for her separate use and maintenance, forever hereafter to use and improve áre same, whether real or personal; and the said Sarah to have the whole benefit and enjoj tnent of her said property, to all intents and purposes, as a feme sole, and to dispose thereof at pleasure. And the said Noyes Palmer, as trustee to said Sarah, hath agreed, and doth hereby agree with the said John Nichols, forever hereafter, to support and maintain the said Sarah, and to pay all debts now due or owing from the said John Nichols and Sarah, on account of any debt, by the said Sarah contracted previous to their marriage, or for any debts, costs or charges, on account of law-suits now commenced, or that may he commenced against the said John, on the said Sarah's account,” &c. Tin condition also contained a stipulation, that the obligor should save the plaintiff harmless, and acquit him and his estate, from all claims of his wife for dower, and from all claims for debts which she might thereafter contract. The bread) of the condition alleged was, that the plaintiff had not been saved harmless, but had been compelled to pay the sum of 150 dollars for fees, charges and expences in certain lawsuits, prosecuted against him, on account of his wife.</p> <p>The defendant pleaded in bar, that Noyes Palmer died on or about the 15th day of October, 1807, having made and published his last will and testament, and appointed his wife, Dorothy Palmer, and the defendant, his executors ; that the will, on the 3d day of November, 1807, was duly proved, and that the defendant accepted the trust of executing the same ; that the court of probate passed an order, that notice should be given to the creditors of the testator’s estate, to exhibit their claims to the executor, within six months from the 3d day of November, 1807; that due notice of such order was given ; and that immediately afterwards, the defendant caused an inventory of all the goods, chattels, credits and estate of the testator, to be made and exhibited to the court of probate, who accepted the same; and that no further estate of the testator had been discovered. The plea then contained an averment, that the plaintiff’s whole cause of action accrued prior to the expiration of the time limited by the court of probate for the exhibition of claims against the estate of the testator; and that the time of such limitation expired long before the bringing of the plaintiff’s action; that the plaintiff did not, within the time of such limitation, exhibit to the defendant the bond on which, &c. nor any claim whatever, against the estate of the testator.</p> <p>To which plea, the plaintiff replied, that the bond on which the suit was brought, was executed to the plaintiff, to indemnify him, among other things, against the costs and charges of divers suits at law, &e. concerning his wife; which were for a long time pending, and undetermined ; that the condition of the bond was not broken within the time limited for the exhibition of claims against the estate of the testator, and that the plaintiff’s claim was under such circumstances, that its amount could not be ascertained and proved within the time of such limitation, but that after the period of the limitation had expired, to wit, on or about the 20th day of November, 1809, the plaintiff was damnified, by being compelled to pay the sum of 300 dollars for counsellor’s fees, and other expences concerning the suits mentioned in the condition of the bond, and for taxes assessed on the estate of his wife. It was also averred in the replication, that the defendant had full knowledge of the plaintiff’s claim upon the bond, and that he had recognized and admitted the same, both before and after the expiration of the time for the exhibition of claims ; and that the defendant had in hit-hands, assets more than sufficient to satisfy ihe plaintiff’s demand.</p> <p>The defendant, in his rejoinder, averted, that all the suits mentioned and referred to in the condition of the bond, had been commenced, prosecuted and terminated, prior to the expiration of the time limited for the exhibition of claims against the estate of the testator; and that prior to that time, the debts therein mentioned, had been put in suit, and final judgments rendered thereon against the plaintiff, and that such judgments were in full effect, and unsatisfied, prior to, and at the expiration of such limitation, «fee. The fact alleged in the replication, that the defendant had full knowledge of the plaintiff’s claim, and had recognized and admitted the same, was traversed. The pleadings, thus ending in an issue in fact, were closed to the court.</p> <p>The Superior Court adjudged the declaration to be insufficient, and rendered judgment for the defendant. To reverse that judgment, the present writ of error was brought</p> <p>contended,</p> <p>1. That the declaration is sufficient.</p> <p>2. That nothing is disclosed by the pleadings, which shews that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.</p> <p>3. That by the form of the judgment, no notice is taken of the issue. To illustrate the last point, he cited Sanford ,Sanford, 2 Day, 559.</p> <p>cited Goodwin v. Goodwin, 4 Day, 343. Marshall v. Rvtton, 8 Term Hep. 545. Dibble v. Hutton, 1 Day, 221.</p>

error. TFtiS was a bill in cjguicery, originally brought to the Superior Court, by Abram Cadwell against Cady and Isaac Cadwell.

<p>hi an action oftrespassfor disturb mgthe plaintifimthe useothisfish-erv, the de-femlants jus-tificd under a plea of title; wherein they stated, that the locus in quo, was a part of Connecticut river, on the west side of the great fiats or middle ground in said river, more than 180 rods from the eastern shore thereof; which flats had been used and enjoyed'by all the citizens of the state, as a common fish-place, from time immemorial, and by the defendants, in common with other citizens, for more than 15 years; and that the acts complained of were done by them in virtue of such common right: it was held, that this plea was within the provisions of fttal. tit. 165. c. 1.18,19.; and that, the title of the defendants to the beat in quo was “ paramount” to the title of the plaintiff, within the meaning of the statute.</p> <p>An adjoining proprietor, on a navigable river, possesses an exclusive right to take fish in his'own land ; but the right of fishing- in such river is a common right.</p>

<p>A mortgagee, by releasing to a third person, all his right in the mortgaged premises, does not thereby, discharge his lien upon the land, acquired by attaching it as the property of the mortgagor, prior to the execution of there-lease; and af-terfinal judgment in the action against the mortgagor, may redeem the land, on paying what is due in equity to such third person.</p>

in ERROR. THIS was an information, brought before the County Court, upon the statute against lascivious carriage and be-haviour. The defendant pleaded not guilty ; and the jury found a verdict against him. On the trial, the attorney for the state, introduced Nancy Parker, as a witness, to prove the facts charged in the information.

THIÉ was an action 0¾ the case. If was alleged;¾⅛⅜⅝ declaration, that the plaintiff was the proprit for and p&ss%S-sor of a certain piece of land in Durham, in the cónStjr of Middlesex, containing about nine acre? ; that near this piece of land, a perpetual stream of water took its rise, and ⅛ 1⅜ naturai course, flowed upon, and across th it was also alleged, that in addition to the right Of Using the water of such stream flowing in it? natural course, the plaintiff was…

THIS was an. action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought to recover a sum of money, claimed to have been paid to the defendant by mistake.

<p>A. loans to JB. eight hundred dollars, and as security, takes an absolute deed of a piece of land of much greater value than the sum loaned,under aparolagreement, that B. may redeem the land, upon re-rsoiui -t of l‘.v »0.«ii,vUlh inh «i l ⅛ I Id pt £ \# h r a m>'i > and íhJ H muuI hold po-s- t; Sion or me h* r h and ¡ a'' to . ' I m t d- lam p * t . n 5' < L H V Jf c he * U Jltb a v« >> -> to pu'u.s so¿} m i <ipK m teu m tí rh,; » t ah t ' 0 O,)''' U , 11» I < o u</p> <p>The confessions of a party, made to a third person, during a negotiation for a settlement, not admissible. Semb.</p>

<p>In an action of indebitatus assiimpsit, for use and occupation, a separate, independent claim for goods sold, &c. cannot be set off against the rent.</p> <p>The record ofajudgment in ejectment, wherein the seisin and possession of the land, and also damages, are recovered, is,of itself, inadmissible evidence in an action of indebitatus assumpsit between the same parties, for rent of the same lands, which accrued prior to the disseisin complained of.</p>

TN E1ULOR~ THIS was a qui tarn prosecution, brought to recover the penalty incurred by force of the statute, prohibiting the sell-lag of spiritous liquors, &c. without license. The action was instituted by Hurnphreeillc, in his own name, and also, in the nume of the treasurer of the town of Woodbridge, against perkins; and was returnable before Stphen Twining, Esq. a justice of the peace for the county of New-Haven, residing in the town of New-Haven.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory not;-, originally brought to the County Court, by Eno against Vris-hie. The justice who issued the writ, certified the payment of a duty of seventeen cents only ; although, the duty of thirty-four cents was in fact paid, at the time when the writ was issued.

This was an action on the case, brought by Bacon againsS Norton and Hills. The cause was tried before the Superior Court, upon the plea of not guilty ; and a verdict was returned for the defendants.

This was an information apon the statute for the punishment of the crime of burglary, (a) The information consisted of three counts; in the first of which, it was alleged, that the prisoner, in the night season, on the 13th day of 'March, 1810, with force and arms, feloniously anti burglariously, ibroke up and entered a certain apartment of the sloop Jennet, then lying in the harbour of Nem-Haven, called the Forc-Pcakc, the same being a shop wherein goods, wares am!…

MOTION fu> a new trial. This v, us ⅛ action of ejectment for sui equal undivided moiety oí a gate, Í of land in Toiland. The d On the trial, it appeared, that in the year 1770, John 11 air den, the eider, hy deed of gift, conveyed the whole of the described land to John Waldm, (lit younger, ami haac If al~ den ; that afterwards, the plaintiff, IVfdnhovsc, levied sundry executions in his favour again?!

This was aa action of trespass vi ct artnis. The decían ¡jon stated, that the plaintiff owned and possessed a -tb-i. . of timber or mast, seventy-five feet in length, and about twenty-four inches in diameter; which stick of tim'-i r. tin- plaintiff had procured for the mast of a cutter or vessel of about 190 tons burthen, and, of the value of 48 dollars ; that the plaintiff was employed in building a vessel of the above description, and that a stick of timber of the above…

Tisis was an action of trespass vt d arrnis. It was alleged in the declaration, that on the 20th day of Sejitember, 1809, the plaintiff owned and possessed a certain dwelling-house in Ea*t-I1aven ; that on the night following said 20th day of •⅜plcmber, about 12 o’clock at night, the wife and family of the plaintiff there being in the occupation of said house, and the plaintiff being absent on a journey out of this state, (and that known to the defendant,) the defendant came…

This was an action on the ease. The declara (ion slated, that in July, ¡80S, the plaintiff chartered the brig Celia, whereof the defendant was master, on freight, for a voyage to the West-Indies, and hack again ; that at the same time, the plaintiff put on board the brig, by permit from the customhouse, of his own property, a large quantity of lumber, consisting of staves, heading, hogsheads, shooks, boards, The declaration then averred as follows “ and before the District…

The plaintiffs claimed title to the land in quest-lion, by virtue of the levy of an execution, in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant On the trial before the Superior Court, the rendering of the judgment, on which the execution issue»!, and the levy of the execution, were admitted.

<p>A. being insolvent, re. covered a judgment in hisown name, in a suit against ,• at thesametime, A. was indebted to B. in a larger sum, on account of sundry judge meats in his favour against A. ; A. was also indebted to C. for services rendered, and money paid out, as the attorney of A,, in managing the suit m favour ofVi, against B.; B. gave notice toC.of the mutual claims subsisting between him and A., and of his intention to prefer a peth ^''fofa* set-off ¡ B. ^J? cordmgly ; but before the bringing of such petition, and after notice of the existence of such mutual claims, &.C., C. procured an assignment of tiie judgment in tavour of A. against B, in payment of his debt : Held, that such assignment was valid, and t hat the set-off as prayed for, could not be made.</p> <p>Held, also, dial C., the attorney, had no lien upon the judgment, which could vary or affect the right of third persons.</p> <p>Qu. Whether C. ought not to have been made a party to the petition for a set-off ></p>

MOTÍON for a new trial. This was an action oí assumpsit. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract in writing, whereby it was agreed, that the plaintiff should perform certain jobs of joiner’s work for the defendant, for a certain stipulated sum ; and by which it was also agreed, that the plaintiff should make all the window sashes for the defendant’s house, set the glass and find the materials for the same ; and that the defendant…

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the town of fTehran against the town of Colchester, to recover the amount of expenses incurred for the support of one John Burke, a pauper. The defendants pleaded the genera! issue. On the trial, the following facts were proved, vis.

Tim prisoner having been convicted, on an indictment, before the Superior Court, for uttering ami putting off a court-tcrfcit liante Hato, made in imitation of Die notes issued by the Niw-Lruunvick i .si rile, an incorporated bank in Nm-Jer-sty, knowing it to he false and counterfeit, moved for a new trial, on iíu. severa! grounds hereafter stated in the opinion of iiiis Com í.

Tfais was an action of disseisin, brought to recover an un- ° . _ divided moiety of a certain piece of land in Milford. Held: and one Peter Butler, entered into the possession of the premises ; that Atwater from that time, to the date of the plaintiffs’ writ, which was issued on the 6th of June, 1810, had continued in the possession of the premises, holding out all others, and taking the whole rents and profits to himself; that within three years after the…

iV RIT of error. This was an action of trespass vi et armis, brought by ttllai against Palmer, for an assault and battery, and false imprisonment.

This was an action of On (ho trial, it appeared, that on the 22d day of December, 1794, Nathan Peters, and Lois, his wife, were seised and possessed, in fee, of a tract of iand, containing 127 acres, which included the land in question ; and on the same day, Peters, and his wife, mortgaged the whole tract to Alexander Stewart. ; that afterwards, Stewart conveyed all his interest in the hind, to the defendant, who went immediately into possession ; that on the 14th day of…

■■MOTION fora new (rial. ■■Ejectment for one undivided moiety of a certain piece sf land in Souihbury. The cause was tried betore the Superior Cour , upon the general igaiie. On the trial, it was admitted by the defendant, that the ¡ihiinl'T- were heirs at law oí Joseph Bryan, who died seised ⅛ fee, of the demanded premises.

THIS was an action on the case, brought against the defendant, as sheriff of Hartford county, for the default of John B, Ripley, his deputy.

in ERROR. THIS was a petition in chancery, against the plaintiffs in error. was a petition in chancery, brought by Couch It was alleged in the petition, that on the 30th day of June, 1798, the petitioner was indebted to one David Tibialis, in the sum of 18Z. for which he held his promissory note, and also, in certain other sums, amounting to the sum of about 100 dollars, for which he also held certain other promissory notes; that to secure the payment of the sums contained…

CASE reserved. At the* term of the Superior Court, held at Litchfield, in i'ihru-iry, 1 ¡'. it, (iould and Bacon, in behalf of Russell Meach-am, moved, that a writ of mandamus might be issued to Aaron Austin and others, judges of the County Court, for the county of Litchfield, requiring and enjoining them, at the then next term of the County Court, to order the verdict of a jury, rendered in a certain qui tam prosecution, pending before such court, wherein Meacham was…

This was a petition in chancery, brought to the Superior Court.

This was an action on the case. The declaration slated that the defendant was arrested by the plaintiff, as an indifferent person, by virtue of a warrant issued on complaint of one Lucy Humphrey, upon the statute concerning bastards and bastardy ¿-that the defendant was brought before a magistrate, and ordered to give bonds for bis appearance before the County Court, &c.; that he neglected to give bonds, and (hereupon, the magistrate granted a mittimus, directing the…

<p>^ ^ name of it., Xalsely^mtl made and"’ published a writiiigrathe following words, viz. Messrs. Doolittle and Jhckermnn, please to let the bearer trade ten dollars out of your store, and oblige yours,” &c. Held, that such acts of A, constitute the crime offorgery, within the meaning of the statute, tit, 66. cap, 3. ⅜«,1,</p>

<p>A. brought an action of slander against B. for saying, that he was a thief, and had stolen his spar; B, ~n an action of trespass, had recovered a judgment against A., with vindie~ tive d~magcs, for having, tortiously,and maliciously, taken away and. cots' ert-ed to his own use, the spar, in relation to which, the words were spoken; on the trial of the action of sland-r, B. it; mitigation of dam ages, offered in evidence, the record of the verdict tuid judgment in his lhsour against ~1. Held, that suchevidence was inadmis-</p>

This was an action on the case. It was alleged in the declaration, that for more than six years previous to the 29th day of March, 1810, the defendant publicly professed and pursued the practice of… Held: that the witness was not cumpellihlc to make such disclosure.

<p>A. conveyed a parcel of land to B.,by deed, with covenants of warranty and sei-sin, for the performance of which, he bound himself, his heirs, executorsand administrators. A. died, and his estate was represented insolvent; but it turned out to be solvent, and the residuum was distributed and paid over to the heir at law. After the final settlement and distribution of the estate, B. was evicted from the land. In an action for breach of covenant, by B., against the administrators of A., it was held, that the administrators were not liable.</p>

<p>In ejectment by husband and wife, the plaintiffs claimed title by virtue of the levy of an execution issued on a judgment rendered in their favour, jointly, for a debt due to the wife before cover-ture, by which the land m question was regularly set off to the execution creditors : Held, that the plaintiffs possessed a joint interest in the land, and were entitled to a recovery.</p> <p>Held, also, in such case, that evidence of cohabitation and reputed marriage of the plaintiffs, was admissible.</p>

This was a. scire facias against the defendants, as garnishees of K, and A. Townsend of the city of New-York, absent debtors. Held: that if a writing is out of the jurisdiction of the court, evidence of its contents, may be admitted. The production of the writing might have been compelled under the laws of the state of Ncw-York. The cases cited in -uipport of the doctrine contended for on the other side, do not apply to the case under consideration.

This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit. It was stated in the declaration, that on or about the 13th day of December, 1804, Amos Weed and Thaddeus Bell, jun., two of the defendants, together with Sylvanus Knapp, George Mills and time being ; and that they applied to the plaintiff, and represented to him, that as select-men of the town, by the advice and direction of Ebenezer Davenport, Esquire, the next justice of the peace, in pursuance of the statute, entitled “ An act…

IN ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, brought in the name of the President and Directors of the Vermont State Bank against the defendant.

in ERROR. THIS was an action of indebitatus assumpsit, brought by Ozias Pettibone against Jonathan Pettibone, for money had and received to the plaintiff’s use.

This was an information in nature of a quo warranto, in behalf of the state, at the relation of Freeman Kilbourn, against the defendant, for usurping, using and exercising the office of first director of the Hartford Bridge Company.

in ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, originally brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error.

MOTION fur a now trial. This was an aciiim of didst isin for a certain pared of iainl hi Ncw-Harlford, v On the trial of this cause, before the Superior Court, the plaintiff claimed title í(> ii.o ’¡and in quest ion, by virtue of the levy of an execution, issued upon a judgment in his favour, against one Eliphalet Ensign. The levy was admitted to have been regularly made, and completed.

in ERROR. against the THIS was a petition for a divorce, originally brought to the Superior Court, by the defendant in error, plaintiff in error. It was stated in the petition, that the respondent was in possession of an estate, of the value of 6000 dollars. He was described as an inhabitant and resident of the city of 4JL . Albany, in the state of Nov-1 ork. The crime of adultery > was alleged, as the cause of complaint.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought to the County Court, by Chester against Blinn, on a promissory note, for the sum of 151. 6s. 2d. lawful money, dated the first day oí January, 1793.

This was an action on Hip ease. Tlie cause was iiif'd before the Superior Court, in St yinnhcr, 1812 ; and a verdict was found for the plaintiff. On the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence, the deposition of one John Roberts, jun, of Pullney, in the state of Ferment.

<p>Jl. IS. and C. having, severally, obtain-edjudgments and executions against JO., caused them, at the same time, to be levied on the land of the debtor ; each execution being levied on the whole land, and the whole set off to the several creditors, in common and undivided, in proportion to the amount of their respective claims; held, in such case, that the execution creditors were vested with a valid title to the land, as tenants in common.</p> <p>In suchcase, the whole amount ofthe several executions, exceeding 600 dollars, and the appraised value of the land being 200 dollars, the officer’s return (which was similar on each execution, varying only as to the amount,) after stating- the levy, appraisment, &c. was in these words ,- “ I do, therefore, by virtue of this execution, set off to the creditor, an undivided right in the said lands, at the sum of 63 dollars, 46 cents, in proportion as 200 dollars” (the value of the land) “ is to 208 dollars, 74 cents,” (the amount of the particular execution,) “ in part payment,” &c.; held, that such return was sufficient to vest each execution creditor with an interest in the land, in proportion to his several debt; and. that the expressions, “ in proportion as 200 dollars is to 208 dollars, 74 cents,” ought to be rejected as surplusage.</p>

This was an action of disseisin, for a certain parcel of land in Ncn-town. The defendant pleaded the general is..-ue ; and the jury returned their verdict in his favour. On the trial before the Superior Court, it was agreed, that before, and until the Oth of September, 1799, one Oliver Ton-sey was well seised and possessed of the premises, and that the defendant was in the possession thereof, at the date of the plaintiff’s writ.

This was an action of disseisin for five-sixth parts of a certain parcel of land in Middletown. The cause was tried before the Superior Court, on the plea of wo mrotig or disseisin : and the jury returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of an execution. The land was attached at. the suit of the plaintiff, as the property of Gershom Hulklcy, one of the defendants, on the 19th of May, 1803.

<p>gent for such persons as shouldchoose W. issued proposals to procure a title to certain lands in Vir-to employ him for that purpose, at 10 cents per acre. He also, applied to JET., and solicited him, as his agent, to aid him in procuring individuals to become purchasers of the lands, on the terms proposed ; and to induce H. to undertake such agency, proposed and agreed to allow him one cent for each acre which lie should agree to take for himself or procure to be taken by others, provided the quantity so to be taken, should amount to 100,000 acres. II, as agent of IV., proposed to C. to become a purchaser of the lands, and communicated to him, the proposals of his principal Afterwards, II. and C. met to negotiate on this subject, when II. informed that the lands were rapidly rising in value, and could not then be procured at 10 cents per acre ; but if C. would agree to give 12| cents per acre, II. would engage to procure the land from II. ,- to which C. gave his assent; and thereupon, II., as the agent of IV., entered into articles of agreement for the purchase of 200,000 acres of the lands, at 12⅜ cents per acre. Afterwards, on the same day, it was agreed between the parties, to vary the terms of the first agreement, and for this purpose II, ill his own behalf, and not os the agent of W., executed an agreement, by which he stipulated, that C. should have the lands mentioned in the first agreement, at 10 cents per acre, on condition that C., when he should become vested with a title, and should have sold the land, should pay to H. one cent per acre, in addition, on 100,000 acres. C. thereupon, in consequence of his contract, with II, associated himself with T., as a partner in such contract; and thereupon, C, and T., immediately, adopted measures to complete a contract with II ., in pursuance of the agreement between II. and C. C. and T. having, afterwards, ascertained, that the representations of II, in relation to the price of the land, he. were incorrect, and that W. had never demanded more than 10 cents per acre for the land, applied directly to IIand contracted with him for the purchase of 200,000 acres of the land, at 10 cents per acre. II was present during the whole of this transaction, and was a subscribing witness of the contract: No mention was made, at this time, of the contract between If. and C. In an action of assumpsit brought by II. against H to recpver the amount of one cent per acre on the lands by him contracted to be sold to C., as agent of W., it was held, to be exclusively within the province of the j ury to determine, from the facts disclosed on the trial, whether the contract ultimately concluded between W., and C. and T, for the sale of the land, was effected by the procurement of II, in pursuance of the agreement between him and W. — Held, also, that neither the admission of T., as a partner in the contract with C’,, nor the variance in the terms of the final contract made with IV., from the stipulations contained in the original agreement between II. and C., oould affect the plaintiff’s right of recover}'.</p>

THIS was an action against the defendants, upon a policy of insurance on the body and inboard cargo of the brig Ganges, at and from Gibraltar, to the port of discharge in the United Slates, dated the 26th of June, 1811. The vessel sailed from Gibraltar, on the 21st of May, 1811, and before her arrival at the port of discharge, a loss, claimed to be within the policy, was sustained.

' This was an action of assumpsit, brought against the defendants, as common carriers.

■ CASE reserved. Tliis was a petition in phancery. It was stated in the petition, that in June, 1795, one John Booth, then in full life, but since deceased, for the consideration of 6002. lawful money of the state of Ncw-York, by deed, with covenants of seisin ami warranty, conveyed to the petitioner a certain Sot ofland in Hudson, to the the performance of which covenants, he bound himself, his heirs, executors and administrators : that the petitioner went into immediate…

This was an action of book debt, brought to recover the freight for the transportation of a certain number of oxen, and a quantity of flour, from Nero-London to St. Bartholomews. The facts, in relation to the case, were these.

This was a petition praying for an injunction agakist the prosecution of certain suiis at law, upon sundry promissory notes, made and executed by the petitioners to one Timothy Kirk, for the consideration of the assignment of certain patent rights.

IN ERROR. THIS was a petition in chancery, brought, originally, by Salmon against Sherwood, complaining of fraud in the sale of certain lands in Virginia.

This was an action of account, brought by Slums against Bush, as surviving partner of the late firm of Bush amt Norton.

This was an action of disseisin, fora certain undivided part of a store in Stratford. The defendant pleaded the genera) jssue which, by agreement of the parties was closed to ~ ° * the court. The issue was found for the plaintiff.

<p>A., on the 22d of September, 1797, mortgaged a piece of land B., by ^ ^ covenants of seisin and warranty, to which, at the time of the execution of the deed, the mortgagor had no title. On the 25th of September, 1797, C. conveyed the same land to A., by an absolute deed. Afterwards, A., with intent to defraud his creditors, executed and delivered to B., an absolute deed of the land. After tlie execution of the last-mentioned deed, I), a creditor of A., levied an execution on the ¡and, and had it set off in satisfaction of his debt. In an action of disseisin, brought by 1). against J}., demanding the seisin and possession of the mortgaged premises, it was held, that the :covenants in the deed from C. to A , enured to the benefit of B., and that he was vested with a valid title, as</p> <p>: Held, also, that the absolute deed from A. to B., could not affect his claim to the - mortgaged premises.</p> <p>; was mortgage : deed, by setting up the subsequent title derived by the absolute deed from C. to A.</p> <p>A new trial will not be granted, a misdirection, or an charge to the jury, when such misdirection, of omission, can hare no effect upon the final decision of the canse.</p>

This wras a scire-fadas against Gillet, as garnishee in a process of foreign attachment.

IN ERROR-, THIS was an action of account, brought, originally, by Dalton anil King, against the present, plaintiffs.

<p>An agreement by u feme-covert, with the assent of her husband, for the sale of her real estate, is void, and cannot be enforced in chancery against her.</p>

<p>In an action on the case, against the sheriff of the county of X., for the escape of a prisoner committed in execution, and who had been admitted to the liberties of the prison, the defendant justified under an order of the County Court for the county of X., altering and extending-the gaol limits in tlie county of Jj.i which order was passed by such County Court held and convened at JY. H. in the county of JY. II.The prisoner, at the time of the alleged escape, was within the limits prescribed by the order, but was without the former limits of the gaol. It was held, in such case, that as the order was good, on the face of it, it was a complete justification.</p>

a new tila!. MOTION' lb an action of assumpsit on a bill of exchange, This was brought against the defendants, as co-partners, under the name and firm of Cowles, Smith and company. The bill was drawn in favour of the plaintiff, upon the company, by Smith, in his own name. The declaration contained three counts.

This was an action of disseisin, for one undivided third part of a parcel of land in Waterford. The defendant pleaded tlie genera! issue; which, by agreement of the parties, was closed to the court. The issue was found for the plaintiff.

MOTION Mr a nr-w trial. This was an action of disseisin, for a parcel of land in Tol-land. The plea was the general issue; which, hy the agreement of llu; parlies, was closed to the court. The issue was found for the defendant. The facts disclosed on the trial la fore the Superior Court, were-as follows. In 1796, one Stephen Howard assigned to Henry Haydock & Son, a certain promissory note, executed to Mm by the defendant.

rpj,is was an action of assumpsit. The defendant pleaded 1 ’ 1 the general issue. 0° tlle trial, it appeared, that on the 10th of August, 1802, the defendant, by a blank endorsement, assigned to the plaiti-certain promissory note, executed to him, by one Joshua Raymond, for the sum of 204 dollars, payable to the defend-ani or jjjs or(]er at the Union Bank in Nero-London, sixty . r days after its date, bearing elate the 21st of July, 1802 ; that w*leu the note became payable,…

This was a scire-facias against Judd, as garnishee, in a process of foreign attachment. The original action was brought against John S'hotrveíJinñ Jeremiah Skotwcll; and the defendant, Judd, was served with a copy of the process, on tSie 2011: of March, 1810.

in ERROR. THIS was an action of book-debt, brought, originally, by Stocking against Fowler, before a justice of the peace, de-inanding six dollars damages. Before the justice, the defendant pleaded, that he owed the plaintiff nothing, and that the plaintiff was indebted to him, in the sunt of fifteen dollars. The issue being joined, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff; from which, on motion of the defendant, an appeal to the County Court, was allowed.

IN ERROR. THIS was a petition in chancery, originally brought to the Counly Court, by the defendants, against the plaintiff in error. li Mas stated in the petition, that Hall, from the 17th pf May, 1800, until the month of August, 1806, was the lawful guardian of Margaret, at which time she arrived at full age; that during this period, he, as guardian, had the custody of Iter ¡and, being in quantity about 31 acres ; that in the month of May, 1800, he, during his…

IN ERROR. THIS was a petition in chancery, brought to the Superi- or Court, by the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error, praying for an injunction against proceedings at law upon certain promissory notes, executed by Hillhmtse to Sachet. These notes were executed and delivered under the following circumstances, vis.

IN ERROR. THIS was an action of account, brought against the defendant for certain goods, wanes and merchandize, delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, at St. Stephens, in the province of Nova-Scolia, and by him received, and sold in the West-hulks, as the agent of the plaintiff. The cause was tried before the Superior Tour! : And nu ditors having been appointed, they awarded a balance of 1C3 dollars, 5 cents, in favour of the defendant.

This was a scire-facias against Griffing, as garnishee, in a process of foreign attachment. The original process was brought against Francis Hazard; and Griffing, the defendant, was duly served with a copy thereof, on the 6th of September, 1809. The question relating to the indebtedness of Griffing to Hazard, depended on the following facts.