Volume 62 — Connecticut Reports

Action to recover for the loss of a horse, harness and wagon through a defect in a highway in the defendant town. The plaintiff sued as administrator of Joseph Lutton, who lost his life by the same accident. The suit was brought to the Superior Court in Tolland County, and tried to the jury before Sanford, J. Verdict for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant for errors in the rulings and charge of the court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Action for entering and taking possession of a store and taking and carrying away a stock of goods in it; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County. The defendant set up in defense an attachment of the property by the defendant Hall, as a constable, upon a suit brought by the defendant Purnell against No rah C. Ahern, whom they claimed to be the owner of the goods.

Replevin for certain machinery claimed to be unlawfully detained by the defendant; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and tried to the court before Robinson, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff. The facts are in large part the same as those stated in Beach’s Appeal from Commissioners, 58 Conn. R., 464, and all further facts appear in the opinion.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js. Action against the defendants as partners, upon a claim for goods sold the firm; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the court before Thayer, J. George W. Smith, one of the defendants, confessed judgment, and the other defendant, Isaac C. Smith, alone made defense. Facts found' and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiffs.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos , April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js.

New Haven Actioh for the recovery of money claimed to be due the plaintiffs as theatrical agents for procuring actors for the defendants; brought, by appeal from a justice of the peace, to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County, and tried to the court before Studley, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs, and appeal by the defendants. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js. Action to recover a broker’s commissions for selling property for the defendant; brought, by appeal from a justice of the peace, to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County, and tried to the court before Perry, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js. Suit for recovery in equity of sixty-six shares of stock of the Adams Express Company, held by the defendant Phillips as trustee; brought to the Superior Court in Fair-field County.

Shit to foreclose a builders’ lien ; brought to the Superior Court in New London County, and tried before Thayer, J. Facts found and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by Cynthia Champion, the principal defendant. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Action to recover possession of real estate; brought- to the Superior Court in New London County, and tried to the court before Thayer, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

<p>The defendant owned a house in which a builder was making alterations under a contract, and the plaintiffs as sub-contractors under the builder had undertaken to do the painting for $170. After they had done $40 worth of work the builder failed, and the plaintiffs decided to abandon the job and lose what they had done, and removed their ladders and other implements. The builder then made another contract with the defendant, by which he agreed to do the remainder of the carpenter work, and the plaintiffs, at the solicitation of the defendant, agreed to do the painting, for which she agreed to pay them $170. Held that the defendant’s agreement was not one to pay the debt of the builder, and was not collateral to the builder’s agreement, and so did not need to be in writing under the statute of frauds.</p>

Suit for the construction of a will; brought to the Superior Court in New London County, and reserved upon the facts as admitted for the advice of this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

<p>Action to recover money of the defendant, as administrator of the estate of Mary Ann Ripley, deceased, claimed under a gift over of the property in the will of Hezekiah Ripley; brought to the Superior Court in New London County, and reserved, on facts found, for the advice of this court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.</p>

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js. Suit for the removal of a cloud from a title; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and heard before Thayer, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs, and appeal by the defendants. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js. Action to recover of the defendant town the amount of damage suffered by the plaintiff in the killing of his sheep by dogs, under Gen. Statutes, § 3752; brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County, and tried to the court before Perry, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Suit for the repeal of certain by-laws passed by the burgesses of the defendant borough; brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County, and heard before JPrentice, J. Facts found and a decree passed striking out certain parts of one of the by-laws and finding the issue in other respects for the defendant. Appeal by the plaintiff. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Action to recover for the taking and carrying away of personal property; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County, and tried to the jury before Taintor, J. Verdict for the plain tiff,‘and appeal by the defendant for error in the rulings and charge of the court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

<p>It is provided by Gen. Statutes, § 1618, that “ every person charged with any offense shall be tried in the county where it shall have been committed, except when it is otherwise provided.” The exception held to mean “when it is otherwise provided by statute,” and not by any rule of the common law.</p> <p>The engineer of a railroad locomotive was criminally prosecuted in New Haven County for so negligently managing his engine as to cause the death of A. The injury was in Litchfield County, and the death in New Haven County. Held that the Superior Court in New Haven County had no jurisdiction of the offense.</p>

Grandjttror’s complaint, and a binding over to the Superior Court in Tolland County, upon a charge in the first count that the defendant, “ with force and arms, did willfully injure a public building and house of worship, situated in said town of Mansfield, said building being the property of the Second Congregational Society of said Mansfield and used by said society as a house of worship.” There were three other counts; the second charged the putting of deleterious and…

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Penn, Js. Shit for an injunction against the destruction of an oyster-bed of the plaintiff, by the defendant’s wharfing out over and digging a channel through it, and for damages; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County. Answer by the defendant, and demurrer to a part of the answer.

Suit for' the construction of a will; brought to the Superior Court in Windham County, and reserved on the facts for the advice of this court. The facts are stated in the opinion.

<p>Where a party claims to hold the land of an ancestor against the heir by virtue of a sale to satisfy debts, he must establish the fact that such debts existed and that all proceedings required for the sequestration of the land for their payment were had.</p> <p>Where the probate decree ordering the sale of the land to pay the debts shows the jurisdictional facts on its face, it is primó facie evidence of those facts, but is open to contradiction.</p> <p>But where all the jurisdictional facts had been separately passed upon by the probate court and no appeals had been taken, it was held that the jurisdictional facts were conclusively established.</p> <p>Where debts are contracted by a married woman upon the credit of her separate estate, her estate alone is liable.</p> <p>In such a case creditors would be compelled, if she were living, to resort to a court of equity for an appropriation of her estate to the payment of their claims; but after her death they could reach the same result by presenting their claims against her estate.</p> <p>The commissioners being an equitable as well as legal tribunal, it would be their duty to allow any claim against her estate that could have been supported before an equitable tribunal.</p> <p>Where in such a case claims were allowed by the commissioners and no appeals taken, it was held that the allowance would be conclusive evidence that the claims were such as her estate was holden to pay. Such an allowance would bind the estate and become the rule for the probate court in the application of the assets to the payment of the debts as fully as a judgment of the Superior Court.</p> <p>A purchaser of the land of a married woman from her administrator, also purchased the life estate in the same land of her husband as tenant by the curtesy. Held that the latter estate became merged in the former, and that certain special circumstances of the case were not sufficient to take it out of the general rule.</p>

<p>Where a cause is appealed from a lower court to the Superior Court the plaintiff cannot he allowed to abandon his cause of action for another within the original jurisdiction of the appellate court.</p> <p>Where a count has been stricken out it is out of the case for all pui'poses, and can only be restored by leave of the court or allowed as a further amendment.</p> <p>A man cannot be guilty of a fraud committed by his agent unless he in some way participated ih. it, and his ratification of a trade fraudulently made by his agent does not become an adoption of the fraud by him if he was ignorant of it.</p> <p>The defendant had given his note for a horse which he purchased and which was sold by his agent to the plaintiff, who claimed the sale to be fraudulent. The plaintiff procured an assignment of the note and got a judgment for the amount of it against the defendant, and also sued him for the fraud and recovered exemplary damages. Held that the plaintiff could not retain both judgments. If the judgment on the note should be allowed to stand, the plaintiff could have no cause for complaint if there should be allowed on the other only enough to make good the damage sustained.</p>

Action to recover for extra work done and extra materials furnished in the erection of a building for the defendant company; brought to the Superior Court in Tolland County, and tried to the jury before Fenn, J. Verdict for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant. The plaintiff had taken a contract to do the mason work in the erection of the building in question, under one Arnold, who was the principal contractor.

<p>A man is “ in failing circumstances,” within the meaning of Gen. Statutes, § 501, when, being insolvent in fact, he is acting in contemplation of actually stopping his business because he is not able to carry it on.</p> <p>A man engaged in business was largely in debt and had not sufficient property to pay his debts, he had for several months allowed all the notes which he had given, of which there was a considerable number, to go to protest without any provision for their payment or renewal, and had made a mortgage for a large sum to his daughter, which, if not wholly fraudulent, was clearly calculated to prefer her to his other creditors. He was still carrying on business, but not as one honestly believing he was solvent and in the hope of extricating himself from a temporary embarrassment, but as one knowing he was insolvent and about failing and closing his affairs from an inability to continue in business and meet his payments. The court below found that he was in failing circumstances. Held that this finding was fully warranted by the facts.</p>

Action to recover for. personal property taken by the defendant; brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County, and tried to the jury before Taintor, J. Yer-diet for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant.

Suit for an injunction against the raising of its track by the defendant railroad company, upon ground over which the plaintiffs claimed a right of way; brought to the Superior Court in New London County. Facts found and case reserved for advice.

Action to recover damages for an injury sustained through the negligence of the defendant railroad company; brought to the Superior Court in Windham County.

<p>Where in settling his administration account in a court of probate an executor accounts for certain claims of the estate by stating that they are uncollectible, the approval of the account by the court is merely a justification of the executor for his failure to realize the amount for the benefit of the estate.</p> <p>If they afterwards become collectible there is no reason why they should not then be administered upon, the court appointing an administrator de bonis non if necessary.</p> <p>Any residuary legatee has sufficient interest to ask the appointment of an administrator of unadministered assets, unaffected by the question whether the estate would be rendered solvent by the assets being realized upon.</p> <p>Probate courts have no power to act upon an agreement between certain debtors of the estate and the executor, that the claims against them should not be subject to collection for distribution, but only to the extent that they might be required for the payment of debts. They cannot try titles to property nor determine questions of estoppel.</p> <p>The Superior Court, sitting for the trial of an appeal from probate, takes the place of the probate court, and can do no more than could have been done by that court.</p>

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js. Action to recover the amount of an endowment claimed to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant corporation, as the beneficiary of a deceased member of the corporation; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried to the court before Thayer, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff.

Action to recover damages for the pollution by the defendant city of a stream of water running through the city and thence to and through the… Held: shall then be delivered to the clerk of the city of New Britain, who shall keep the same on file for public inspection, and said damages being paid or deposited as before provided, said city may go on to complete said public improvement and do all acts necessary or convenient for that purpose without further liability in the…

Action for damages for an obstruction of a way, with a prayer for an injunction pendente lite; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and tried to the jury before Fenn, J. Verdict for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant for error in the rulings and charge of the court.

New Haven and Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seyhour, Torrance and Fenn, Js. Action to recover damages for a breach of contract; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County. The court (F. B. Hall, J.,') sustained a demurrer to the complaint, and rendered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff appealed. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Two informations in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, brought by the state at the relation of John J. Phelan and Marvin H. Sanger respectively, the former of whom claimed to have been elected to the office of secretary of the state, and the latter to that of treasurer of the state, against the defendants respectively, who were in possession of those offices by holding over from a former election; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and heard together…

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., April T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js.

Hartford Dist., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter; Seymour, Torrance and Prentice, Js. Suit to obtain authority to take certain lands of the defendant'for the enlargement of a cemetery; brought to the Superior Court in Windham County.

Hartford Dist., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Prentice, Js. Action on an award; brought, by appeal from a justice of the peace, to the Court of Common Pleas of Hartford County. Answer held insufficient by the court (Taintor, A,) and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.

Hartford Dist., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Prentice and Robinson, Js. Appeal from a probate decree establishing the will of Fanny Shanley ; taken to the Superior Court in Litchfield County, and tried to the jury upon the issue of mental soundness of the testatrix, before Seymour, J. Verdict sustaining the will, and appeal by the original appellant for error in the rulings and charge of the court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Hartford Dist., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Prentice, Js. Two ACTIONS to recover for the destruction of property by a fire communicated to it by a locomotive engine of the defendant railroad company; brought to the Superior Court in Windham County, and heard in damages upon a default by Thayer, J. Facts found and full damages assessed in both cases, and appeals by the defendant. The cases were argued together in this court.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance and Fenn, Js. Suit to set aside a lien claimed' by the defendant city upon land of the plaintiff; brought to • the Superior Court in New Haven County. The- déféndant demurred to the’ complaint, and the court (J. M. llalli, J],)' overruled the demurrer, and, the defendant not pleading further, rendered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant, appealed;

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., June T., 1892. Andrews, G. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js.

<p>Hartford Dist., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Fenn, Js.</p> <p>Shit for an injunction; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford, and heard before Markham, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant. The case is fully stated in the opinion.</p>

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and F. B. Hall, Js. Appeal from the doings of commissioners on the estate of Patrick Coyle, deceased; taken to the Superior Court in New Haven County. A claim presented by the appellant was disallowed by the commissioners, and the court (J. M. Hall, J.,) made a finding of the facts and rendered judgment for the appellee. Appeal by the original appellant.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Oct T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Torrance, Fenn and T. B. Hall, Js. Suit to recover a trust fund in the hands of the defendant, a Roman Catholic bishop, being the amount paid by the city of Waterbury on an appraisal of land that had been held by the bishop as a Catholic cemetery, and which was taken by the city for a public park; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County.

<p>A testator, having no nearer relatives than his parents and O, the infant son of his deceased sister, gave O one hundred dollars, the interest to accumulate till he was twenty-one and thereafter to be paid to him yearly, and at his death the principal to go to his children, if he left any, and if none, then to fall back into the estate. Of the rest of his ¡^estate he gave a life use to his parents, with a right to use the principal if needed, and after their deaths whatever remained was to go to G “ upon the same terms and conditions ” as above, and after the death of the parents and of C whatever was undisposed of was to go to an uncle of the testator. By a codicil made eleven years later he gave to C four hundred dollars more, “ upon the same condition and with the same directions ” as the original bequest. C died at the age of twenty-one, leaving an infant daughter. The property of which the parents had the use was left at their deaths but little reduced. Held that the will must be construed as giving this property to the child of C and not to the uncle of the testator.</p> <p>If a will will bear a construction in favor of the heir equally as well as in favor of a more distant relative, that construction is to be preferred.</p>

<p>A mill-owner who has a pondage right in land of a proprietor above, is not the absolute owner of the ice formed upon the pond, but has the right to have it remain so long as it will be of benefit to him in the use of the water for his mill.</p> <p>The owner of the soil may use the water of the stream for domestic purposes, for watering his cattle, for irrigation, and for any use not inconsistent with the rights of the mill-owner, although it is ponded, but he has not the right, as matter of law, to take the ice for mercantile purposes where its removal would cause a material injury to the mill-owner.</p>

<p>T bought with his own money a piece of real estate for $1,700, and had it conveyed to his wife, on her promise to convey it to him whenever he requested. This obligation the wife always admitted and finally agreed that if she died without having conveyed it he should be paid $1,700 out of her estate. She died without having made the conveyance and he presented a claim to the commissioners on her estate for $1,700. Held that the contract was a valid one and could be enforced against the wife’s estate.</p> <p>Where one buys real estate with his own money and has it conveyed to another, the case becomes (in the absence of a presumption of a gift, which may always be rebutted,) one of a resulting trust in favor of the party paying the money.</p> <p>And this trust may be proved by parol without offending against the statute of frauds.</p> <p>And the nature of the trust which the law implies from the circumstances is not changed by the fact that the parties have made an agreement between themselves as to the property which is identical with the one which the law imputes to them.</p> <p>The statute of limitations runs against a resulting trust on the ground that the holding of the title is adverse to the right of the cestui que trust.</p> <p>But it does not run against the resulting trust where the trustee has at all times admitted the right of the cestui que trust.</p> <p>Commissioners on an estate are an equitable as well as legal tribunal, and it is their duty to allow any claim presented to them which can be supported either at law or in equity. And the duty of the Superior Court is the same on an appeal from them.</p> <p>The claim in the present case was presented to the commissioners simply as an indebtedness “ to cash $1,700,” and so stood in the Superior Court on the appeal. Held to be sufficient in form. (The appeal was taken before the adoption of the rule, 58 Conn., 588, which requires a fuller statement of the claim in the appellate court.)</p>

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and F. B. Hall, Js. Action by the plaintiff as trustee in insolvency to recover for property of the insolvent debtor attached and held by the defendant; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and reserved upon the pleadings for advice. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, F. B. Hall and J. M. Hall, Js. Action to recover the amount of certain notes, upon which it was claimed that the defendant was liable as a partner with the maker; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County, and tried to the court before Thayer, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff. The case is fullystated in the opinion.

Hartford Dist., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Seymour, Torrance and Prentice, Js. Suit to foreclose a judgment lien; brought to the Supe rior Court in Hartford County, and heard before F. B. Hall, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff. If

<p>New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance and Fenn, Js.</p> <p>Suit for the foreclosure of tax-liens; brought to the District Court of Waterbury, and reserved, upon a finding of the facts, for the advice of this court.</p>

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and F. B. Hall, Js. Application for a review of the action of the board of relief of the city of Bridgeport; made to the Superior Court in Fairfield County. Motion of the defendant to erase the case from the docket for want of jurisdiction granted by the court (Prentice, J.,~) and appeal by the plaintiff.

Suit, by a trustee in insolvency, to recover certain real estate claimed to have been fraudulently conveyed by tbe insolvent to his wife; brought to the Superior Court in New London County, and heard before JFenn, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Oct. T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Fenn and F. B. Hall, Js. Appeal from an assessment of damages upon a city improvement; brought before Studley, J., (of the Court of Common Pleas of New Haven County,) being the same case before this court at a former term and reported in 61 Conn., 518.

Suit for contribution; brought to the City Court of the city of Hartford, and tried to the court before Markham, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Jan. T., 1893. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and Prentice, Js. Petition to Thayer, J., under Gen. Statutes, § 58, which authorizes a judge of the Superior Court, on petition, to hear and decide upon contested claims to city and town offices. The offices in question were those of selectmen of the town of Waterbury.

Hartford Dist., Jan. T., 1898. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and F. B. Hall, Js. Suit for an injunction; brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County. Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the court QTaintor, J.,') for the defendant allowing him certain costs. The case is stated in the opinion.

Action to recover the expense of re-planking a bridge over the defendant’s railroad track in the plaintiff city; brought to the Superior Court in Middlesex County. The following statement of facts was agreed upon by the parties. The bill of particulars is for labor and materials rendered by the plaintiff in repairing, by re-planking, the roof of the defendant’s railroad bridge at Main street in the city of Middletown, which roof is the surface of the highway.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Jan. T., 1893. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and Prentice, Js. Suit for the construction of a will; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County, and reserved, upon facts found,' for the advice of this court.

Hartford Dist., Jan. T.,- 1893. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and F. B. Hall, Js. Action for an injury to the plaintiff’s horses, harness and carriage, through the negligence of the defendant; brought to the District Court of Waterbury, and heard in damages, after a demurrer overruled, by Grow ell, J., Facts found and damages assessed at $325. Appeal by the defendant, the plaintiff also appealing on the ground.of an error in the ruling of the court as to damages.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Jan. T., 1893. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and Prentice, Js. Application for relief from a sewer assessment; brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and heard before Thayer, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiff. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Jan. T., 1893. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and Prentice, Js. Action for a malicious prosecution ; brought to the Court of Common Pleas in New Haven County, and tried to the jury before Deming, J. Verdict for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant for errors in the rulings and charge of the court.

Appeal of the New York & New England Railroad Company from an order of the railroad commissioners requiring the company to remove a grade-crossing in the town of Bristol; taken to the Superior Court in the county of Hartford, and heard before F. B. Sail, J. The railroad commissioners were made respondents, with the town, of Bristol and sundry land owners. Facts found and judgment rendered for the appellees, and appeal by the railroad company.

New Haven & Fairfield Cos., Oct T., 1892. Andrews, C. J., Carpenter, Torrance, Fenn and F. B. Hall, Js. Action to recover for personal property unlawfully taken and detained by the defendants; brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield County, and tried to the jury, on a general denial, before Robinson, J. Yerdiet for the plaintiffs and appeal by the defendants for errors in the rulings and charge of the court. The case is fully stated in the opinion.

Action' upon the covenants of a lease; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County, and tried to the court, before JP. B. Hall, J. Facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs, and appeal by the defendant. The matter set up by the defendant both as a defense and as a counterclaim is stated in the opinion.

<p>In the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; in admiralty.</p> <p>Libel in personam ; heard on exceptions to the jurisdiction.</p>

<p>In the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; in admiralty.</p>

<p>The plaintiff was Worshipful Master of a local masonic lodge, and was summoned before the Grand Master of the state lodge, to which the local lodge belonged, to show reason why he should not he suspended from his office, which was not one of profit, for alleged misconduct, and brought a suit in a state court for an injunction against such action of the Grand Master. By the rules of the order, if suspended, he had a right of appeal to the state lodge. Held that a suit in a state court would not be entertained until he had pursued all the remedies provided by the rules of the order-.</p> <p>And that it was not a sufficient reason for entertaining the suit that the Grand Master was himself in the first instance both complainant and judge, and would preside over the state lodge on an appeal taken to it from his decision.</p> <p>Nor the fact that a reversal of the Grand Master’s decision by the state lodge could not, owing to lapse of time, restore him to his office, the office not being one of profit.</p> <p>The rule that remedies within the order must first be exhausted where property rights are not involved is universally accepted. How it would be where property rights are involved": Quaere.</p> <p>Injunctions will not be granted where the wrongful acts sought to be enjoined affect reputation merely.</p> <p>An allegation of “irreparable injury” is not sufficient without a statement of the facts which constitute it.</p>