Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Conn. 332

Pratt v. Foot

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 15, 1827

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1827-06-15

IN ERROR. In an action of assumpsit before a justice of the peace, the declaration stated, That on the 26th of September, 1823, the plaintiff, being exempt from military duty, at the request of the defendant, enlisted into a company of cavalry, whereof the defendant was captain, and in consideration thereof, the defendant agreed, that the plaintiff’s name should be erased from the roll of the company, whenever the defendant should cease to be its captain; that on the 6th of…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1920

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1827-06-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Peters, J.

¶1The agreement stated in the declaration is void.

¶2In the first place, it was made without consideration. The plaintiff’s undertaking was to serve the State, and not the defendant, who received the enlistment and services of the plaintiff as a public agent, and not as an individual;-who did not, and could not, receive any private benefit therefrom. It can hardly be necessary to cite authorities to prove, that a nude pact is of no validity. See 1 Pow. Cont. 330. & seq.

¶3Secondly, the defendant had no authority to make or execute the contract. He was acting in a public capacity, by virtue of his commission, and had power to enlist the members of his company, but not to discharge them, except for neglect of duty, for which he might erase their names from the roll, and hand them over to the commander of the infantry company, by way of additional punishment. All the powers, duties and liabilities of the militia, are prescribed by law. By statute, (tit. 67. sect. 5.) it is enacted, that “ the companies of cavalry, &c. shall be filled, from time to time, by voluntary enlistments from exempts, or from such companies of infantry as the commander in chief may direct,” &c. “ And whenever any musician or private of any enlisted company shall refuse or neglect to dress in the uniform duly established in and for said company, and to perform his duty therein, as required by law, he may, by the commanding officer of said company, after three months notice to dress and equip himself, he still refusing or neglecting so to do, be erased from the roll of such company ; and notice thereof shall thereupon be given to the commanding officer of the infantry company, within whose limits such musician or soldier resides, who shall forthwith enrol him in his company.” And it is enacted, by the first section of the same statute, that “all persons, who are, or hereafter shall be, exempted from performing military duty, who shall volunta*334rily join and become members of any military company, shall thereafter be and remain liable to perform such duty, in the same manner, and for the same period, as if they had never been exempted therefrom.

¶4There is no error in the judgment complained of.

The other judges were of the same opinion.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/6/conn/332 · .json · Public domain