Volume 7 — Connecticut Reports

This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate for the district of Hartford.

This was an action on the ease against the defendant, as a deputy of the sheriff of Hartford county, for neglect of duty in the service of an execution in favour of the plaintiffs against Orrin… Held: are prescribed by statute. Tit. 21. sect. 24. p. 142. The statute mentions but one day for a term. The description of a court by that day, is, of course, a description according to the statute.

This was a bill in chancery, praying for an account, for a division of partnership effects and for a conveyance of title to certain… Held: that it was, in all respects, a portion of the partnership fund, and was therefore distributable as personal property. Jefferyes v. Small, 1 Vem. 217 Lake v. Craddock & al. 3 P. Wms. 158. Gowon Part. 50. The only departure from this principle has been in relation to the rights of the widow and the heir; as in Thornton v. Dixon, 3 Bro.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit; tried at Hartford, February term, 1828, before Hosmer, Ch. J. devised to three of his children, viz. the plaintiff’s wife and two of her sisters, the South half of his home-lot farm from Connecticut river to the East end, and to two other children, viz. the defendant’s wife and another, the North half of his home-lot farm.

This was a bill in chancery, praying for an injunction against the defendants to desist from proceeding to erect locks and canals, or any other structure for the passage of boats and rafts, on the falls or rapids in Connecticut river, called Mad Tom and Surf bars.

This was an indictment for an assault on the body of Rebecca Sloper, with an intent to commit a rape.

in error. This was a bill in chancery, brought by Bradley against Han-Cook, administratrix of Henry Cook, deceased, praying for the correction of a miatake in a discharge given by Bradley to Henry Cook, or for an injunction against the use of that discharge in an action at law, pending in the superior court. The bill stated the following case.

This was an action qui tarn, for taking usuiy, brought on the statute, to recover the value of the money alleged to have been loaned by the defendant, to one Hezekiah Scott, on a corrupt and usurious agreement The cause was tried, on the general issue, at Litchfield, February term, 1828, before Peters, J. On the trial, Hezekiah Scott, named in the declaration as the borrower of the money, was offered as a witness by the plaintiff, to prove the alleged usury.

in error. This was an action, brought by Sears, against The Goshen and Sharon Turnpike Company, on the statute relating to highways and bridges, to recover damages for an injury sustained by him, through the defects and insufficiency of the defendants’ road. The cause was tried, on the general issue, at Litchfield, February term, 1828, before Peters, J. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for 166 dollars damages.

This was an action of account to recover the proceeds of a quantity of cheese.^ The plaintiff alleged, that he was the owner of two third parts of the cheese, and the defendant the other third part; and that they held as tenants in common; and that the defendant had sold the whole, and refused to account with the plaintiff for the avails.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought 'December nth, ] 826. The declaration comprised two counts : the first special, for the support of Asahel Moss and family, from the 20th of May 1825 to the 1st of July 1826; the second, general indebitatus assumpsit.

IN ERROR. This was an action brought by Smith against Loomis, on a note or contract in writing, signed by the defendant, in and by which the defendant promised the plaintiff to pay or deliver to him, or bearer, for value received, 51 dollars worth of good merchantable brick, at five dollars per thousand, to be delivered at his the defendant’s brick-yard in Torrington, by the 1st of November, 1824.

This was a petition for a divorce, charging the respondent Hannah Humphrey, the wife of the petitioner, with having committed the crime of adultery, On the hearing before Ve-ters, J., Litchfield county, February term 1828, the petitioner, for the purpose of proving the crime alleged in the petition, introduced a witness, who testified, that in January, 1827, he and several other persons were in Virginia, on business ; that the respondent was with them, in the capacity of a…

This was an action of ejectment, tried, on the general issue, at Fairfield, December term, 1826, before Peters, J. On the 18th of March, 1824, the plaintiffs attached, by a writ in their favour… Held: it is incumbent on the party seeking to impeach it, to shew the irregularity. The presumption is, that omnia prasumuntur rite et solenniter esse acta, doneepróbetur in contrarium.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregrt, alleging the throwing down and the removing of the plaintiff’s posts and bars ; tried at Fairfield, December term, 1826, before Peters, J. On the trial, on the general issue, the plaintiff proved the acts complained of in his declaration.

IN ERROR. The admission of illegal evidence, which might have influence! the triers in their decision, is ground of error, though it may not appear, that it had in fact, any influence. An action of book debt, pending in the superior court, was referred to auditors. An award was made, and returned to court and accepted.

This was an action of debt for a legacy, given to the plaintiff, Hannah Ann Knapp, by Lucy Ann Weed, in her last will, (a) The cause, which had been previously tried, and a new trial granted, was tried again, at Fairfield, December term, 1826, before Peters, J On this trial, these facts were agreed to, by the parties.

IN ERROR. An action for a libel having been brought, by Dunning against Hillhouse, which was tried in the superior court, at Fairfield, December term, 1824 ; and the plaintiff having obtained a verdict ; the defendant procured the record to be transmitted to this Court, for revision in error ; and after argument, the judgment of the superior court was affirmed.(a) Hillhouse then brought the present writ of error, assigning for error, that “ said superior court did never…

This was an action of assumpsit for supplies furnished to Harriet, the wife, and Sally and Lucinda, the minor children, of Samuel Darling. Held: after the lapse of twenty years, that the assignee of A. was entitled to redeem. Thirdly, the mortgagor is the owner of the land, and may gain a settlement by virtue of his estate as mortgagor. The King v. Edington, 1 East, 288. 293. Barkhamsted v. Farm-ington, 2 Conn.

This was a bill in chancery to foreclose mortgaged premises. On the hearing, at Fairfield, December term, 1826, before Peters, J., the plaintiffs exhibited the mortgage deed, and the note which it was given to secure, and proved the execution of them.

IN ERROR. This was an action of trespass, brought by Baldwin and others against Joseph B. Munson and Eli Beard, for entering the fishing-place of the plaintiffs between the mouth of the Ousatonic river and Leavenworth’s ferry, and taking fish.

This was an action of book debt, tried at Fairfield, December term, 1827, before Daggett, J. After praying oyer of the plaintiff’s account and setting it out, the defendants pleaded in bar, that Clement Botsford died on the 25th of July, 1824, and that the plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue within six years of that time The last item in the plaintiff’s account was charged in 1802.

IN ERROR. This was a complaint, exhibited by a grand-juror of the 0p t]ie town of Branford, to Benjamin Page, Esq., a justice of the peace, against Amos Bishop, for taking excessive toll.

This was an action of ejectment; tried at New-Haven. January term, 1827, before Brainard. J. The demanded premises were the soil, with the wharf and store standingthereon, built between high and low water mark, on the East side of Dragon river. This river is an arm of the sea, where the tide ebbs and flows, and is navigable, adjoining the premises, for large vessels.

Thi-s was a bill in chancery, brought to the superior court, stating the following case.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit; triedj on the general issue, at Middletown, February term, 1828, before Daggett, J. It… Held: that an administrator, afterwards coming in by title as heir, and also his assigns, were estopped from denying a title in a deed given by him as administrator, though of a right which he had not power to convey. A writing estops in two ways ; 1st, by the declaration of a fact; 2ndly, by a covenant, to prevent circuity of action.

IN ERROR. This was abill in chancery, brought by Daniel Rand, against Francis, for a set-off. At the term of the superior court, in February, 1827, Daniel, Richard and Robert Rand, partners in trade under the firm of R. 4 D. Rand 4 Uo., recovered judgment, in an action of book debt, against Francis, for the sum of 730 dollars, 25 cents. At the same term, Francis recovered judgment, in an action of trespass, against Daniel Rand, for 117 dollars, 56 cents.

This was an appeal from a decree of the court of probate, in the district of Saybrook, allowing the account of Augustus Chalker, administrator on the estate of his late wife, Rhoda Chalker, and ordering a sale of her real estate sufficient to pay the amount. The principal part of the account, and the only part excepted to, was for “ cash paid on note to Richard TV.

This was an action of ejectment for several pieces of land in Saybrook ; tried, on the general issue, at Middletown, February term, 1828, before Daggett, J. The plaintiff was the owner in fee of the demanded premises until the 6th of July, 1824, when the President, Directors and Company of the Eagle Bank levied thereon an execution in their favour against the plaintiff; and the defendant, who had the title of the Eagle Bank, entered under that levy and ousted the plaintiff…

This was an action of trespass, in two counts. The first was trespass quare clausum fregit, alleging the cutting and carrying away of a certain number of trees; the second was trespass de bonis asportatis, alleging the taking and carrying away of the timber and trees, being in the plaintiffs’ possession, on the land described in the first count.

IN ERROR. This was a scire-facias on a bond of recognizance, entered into, by Stephen Billings as principal, and Gurdon Bill a« surety, before John Brewster, Esq., a justice of the peace, in pursuance of a judgment rendered by him, on a qui tarn complaint, exhibited by Joseph S. Avery, against Billings, for a secret assault.

This was an action brought on a statute law of the United States, entitled “ an act for the government and regulation of seamen in the merchants’ service,” to recover the damages, which the plaintiff, as owner of the schooner Defiance, had sustained, by the desertion of the defendant.

in error. This was an action of debt, instituted by Champlin, in his own name and in behalf of the United States, in the county court of the county of New-London, against Davison, master of the steam-boat Fanny, passing regularly as a packet-boat on the waters between the port of New-London and the port of New-York, to recover the penalty of fifty dollars for an alleged violation of the 19th section of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved the 3rd of March,…

This was an action of ejectment for one undivided fifth part oí a piece of land in Waterford ; tried at Norwich, January term, 1828, before Lanman, J. On the 4th of July, 1754, Roger Dart, being seised in fee of certain lands, devised them as follows. 1. His farm at Jor-dain to his son Roger, his heirs and assigns forever, upon condition that he pay to two of the testator’s daughters what their legacies should fall short of £50, old tenor, each. 2.

This was an action of slander, tried at Norwich, January term, 1828, before Lanman, J. In his declaration the plaintiff averred, that the defendant falsely and maliciously spoke of and concerning him, in his profession of a physician, the following words : “ He has killed three, and ought to be hung; damn him. They all died through his mismanagement.

This was an information against Asa L. Avery, for writing and sending, on the 7th of July, 1827, to Jannette White, the wife of Alfred White, a letter in the following terms: “Mrs. Jannette White. I think we have played peep-abo long enough; and in my opinion, travelled enough. It is highly necessary for lovers to meet, in order to understand each other’s minds. I do believe it was your intention to have met me, a week ago last Sunday.

This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis; tried'at Norwich, January term 1828, before Lanman, J. On the 8th of May, 1827, the plaintiff, a deputy sheriff, by-virtue of a writ of attachment against Joseph C. Beckwith, took the goods mentioned in the declaration, mostly articles Qf household furniture, in the house occupied by Beckwith and pi!t jn tjje cust0(]y of one Chappell, without otherwise removing them from the possession of the debtor.

This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis ; tried at Brooklyn, January term, 1828, before Lariman, J. The plaintiff claimed title to the goods mentioned in the declaration, by purchase from her father, Amos Treat, bona fide and for a valuable consideration.

This was a bill in chancery against the mortgagees of one Thomas Lyon, to redeem mortgaged estate. The plaintiff founded his title on the levy of an execution upon the equity of redemption of the mortgagor. The estate mortgaged was a farm of land, consisting of one connected tract, situate in part in the town of Ashford, and in part in the adjoining town of Pomfret.

This was an action of slander, tried, under the general issue, at Brooklyn, January term, 1828, before Lanman, J. The words alleged as slanderous in the first and third counts of the declaration, were these : “ Amherst Scovell keeps a false record.

IN ERROR. This was a suit for the maintenance of a bastard child, instituted and prosecuted, by the selectmen of the town of Plainfield, against Hopkins,'the person accused of begetting such child.

This was an action of debt,'to recover the sum of 150 dollars, commenced in January, 1826. The cause was tried, on the plea of nil debel, at Brooklyn. September term, 1827, before Brainard, J. The declaration consisted of two counts.

This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Moses Wylie, as executor of John Wylie, deceased, and tried at Brooklyn, September term, 1827, before Brainard, J. The declaration contained three counts ; the two first of which were abandoned at the trial.

This was an action for money had and received ; tried at Norwich, January term, 1828, before Lanman, J. The plaintiffs claimed, that the money mentioned in the declaration having been attached, was, by the officer who served the attachment, put into the defendant’s hands, to be kept for the plaintiffs’ use, and to be returned to them, whenever it should be released or discharged from the attachment, and that the suit in which it was so attached, was afterwards settled by the…

in ERROR. This was a bill in chancery, brought by Samuel Pitkin against Joseph Pitkin and others, stating the following case.

IN ERROR. This was a bill in bill in chancery, brought by Samuel Pit-kin and Edward Pitkin, executors of Elisha Pitkin, against Joseph Pitkin and others, heirs and devisees of Elisha Pitkin, stating the following case, In 1818, Elisha Pitkin executed a deed of gift of all his real estate lying in this state to the plaintiffs and to the defendants. He retained that deed until his death, when it was his intention that it should take effect.

This was an action of ejectment, for four pieces of land in Burlington ; tried at Hartford, September term, 1827, before Daggett, J. The plaintiff claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of an execution in his favour against Alva Marks, made on the 11th of March, 1825. The piece of land first described in the declaration, containing four acres, was owned by Marks in fee ; and in the others his interest was that of a tenant in common.

This was a bill in chancery, instituted by Sigourney, against Munn, who was formerly his partner in trade, and against Hoi-brook, an incumbrancer under Munn, claiming a balance due to him, as partner, from Munn, on the adjustment of the partnership concerns ; and praying that some meet person be appointed to divide the company property, or that so much of it be sold as will, on the winding up of the partnership concerns, pay him such balance, and that all the title which…

This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis; which came on for trial at Hartford, February term, 1829; when a case comprising the following facts, was made and agreed to. Previous to the year 1742, a large tract of land had been granted to the first ecclesiastical society in the ancient town of Simsbury, for the maintenance of the gospel ministry.

This was a bill in chancery for the specific performance of an agreement for the demise of land. The case stated in the bill, and found by the court, was as follows. On the 29th of July, 1825, Charles Higgins, one of the defendants, applied to Daniel Wadsworth, Esq. for the purchase of the land in question. Mr. Wadsworth declined selling it, unless the use of it could be secured to Elizabeth Crocker, the plaintiff, during her life.

This was an action of ejectment; to which the general issue Was pleaded. The deiendant, Phebe Booth, claimed title to the demanded premises, by virtue of the levy of an execution in her favour against Thompson Booth, the deiendant, and two other persons.

This was a bill in chancery to redeem mortgaged premises, and for an injunction against an action of ejectment for such premises, brought by Goodwin against Abbe, and pending in court. The present suit was commenced in December, 1827.

This was an information at common law, filed by the state’s attorney, in the superior court, alleging, That Doud, in pursuance of a judgment of the court, was,on the 27th of December, 1828, lawfully imprisoned in the common gaol of Litchfield county, for a certain assault and battery by him before that time committed; and being so imprisoned, did, on said 27th of December, with force and arms, wilfully, unlawfully and felo-niously escape from and out of said gaol, against…

This was a bill in chancery, stating the following case. On the 22d of April 1822, Joel Deming, one of the defendants, and Israel Crane, the plaintiff, entered into a covenant, by which it was agreed, by the former, that he and one John Bragg should build a bridge over the Passaic river, on the turnpike road, and complete it, by the 1st oí July following; and by the latter, that he should furnish the timber for the bridge, and to pay the sum of 800 dollars, of which 100…

This was an action on a promissory note, made by Stephen Summers, dated the 2d day of November, 1824, for 609, dollars, 59 cents, payable to Andrew Lyon, jun. The defendant pléaded in bar the matters following.

A new trial having been granted, pursuant to the determina-^on 0f ⅛⅛ Court, ante 143, 149., the cause was tried again, at Danbury, September term, 1828, before Peters, J. On this trial, as on the former, the case turned on the settlement of Lucy Darling.

IN EREOK. This was an information, charging the prisoner, Amos Ben-ham, with having in his possession, on the 26th of December, 1828, a forged bank note or bill… Held: by the prisoner, on said 26th day of December, 1828, at the same time and place, and with the same intent, and with the same knowledge of its being forged; and that it was in the same parcel, and was finally taken, at the same time, from his possession, and was never, at any different time, in his possession.

This was an action on a note or writing in the following terms : “ I, Moses Hoyt, of New-Fairfield, promise to pay to Mary Cornwall, of New-Fairfield aforesaid, the sum of forty shillings, lawfully money of this state, annually, during the term of her natural life, payable in any sort of produce of this state, or merchants’ goods, at the common market price, to be delivered to her, or her order, at the place where said Hoyt now dwells in New-Fairfield; it being for the use…

This was an information against Josiah Smith, filed by the state’s attorney, in the superior court, charging the defendant with having erected and continued a stone-wall in and upon a public highway in the town of Stamford, whereby said highway was greatly narrowed, straightened and obstructed. The defendant moved to quash the information, ón the ground that the superior court had no jurisdiction over it, nor any right by law to take cognizance of it.

IN ERROR. This was an action of scire-facias, stating the following case.

This was an information against Stoddard Leach in two counts.

Tins was an action of assumpsit, in two counts ; the first, general, for money had and received for the plaintiffs’ use ; the second, special, for the amount of 72 shares of stock, subscribed by the plaintiffs, and demanded of the defendants, after six months notice of their intention to withdraw them. The plaintiffs are, and for more than twenty years past, have been, an ecclesiastical society, duly incorporated, and located in Neiv-Haven in this state.

This was an action of assumpsit, to recover the amount of 65 shares of stock, subscribed by the plaintiffs, on the 1st of January, 1822, and demanded of the defendants, on the 28th of March, 1826, after having given to the directors six months notice of their intention to withdraw them.

This was a case reserved, by the superior court, sitting in chancery, for the consideration of this Court, on a cross-bill filed by the plaintiffs, against the original bill of the Savings Bank, sundry depositors and creditors of the Eagle Bank and the Eagle Bánk ; which was tried before Bissell, J., at an adjourned term of the superior court, at New-Haven, in June, 1829.

During the pendency of a bill in chancery, brought by the Savings Bank, the Eagle Bank and sundry depositors and creditors of the Eagle Bank, against William W. Woolsey and others, Jjynde Catlin filed a cross-bill, which, in connexion with the cross-bill of Homer and others, (a) was tried before Bissell, J., at an adjourned term of the superior court at New-Haven, in June, 1829. The case, as it appeared from the finding of the court, was this.

in error. This was a bill in chancery, brought by Rhoda Bailey against Ira Skinner and Eunice Cone, before the superior court, in which it was alleged, that said Bailey agreed to convey about sixteen acres of land in Haddam, to the said Skinner, in consideration of which Skinner was to give her a lease of the premises during her life ; that she immediately executed the deed, and soon afterwards acknowledged it, with a view to deliver it; that Skinner fraudulently, and…

This was an action on a bond, given to the plaintiff, as judge of probate, by the defendants, as administrators of the estate of William R. Swathel deceased, to secure a faithful performance of their trust.

This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit; tried at Middletown, February term, 1829, before Hosmer, Ch. J. The locus in quo was a tract of land in Durham, containing about twenty acres. The question of title was the only one in controversy. The defendant claimed title, by a deed from Joseph Chidsey, a constable of Durham, and collector of the state tax for the year 1821.

IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by Hezekiah Goddard, as indorsee of a promissory note, against Erastus Selden, the indorser. The note declared on was made by John C. Ely, for 300 dollars, dated May 13th, 1823, payable to the defendant, or order, at the Union Bank in New-London, 60 days from anf] indorsed by the defendant.

This was an action of assumpsit against Samuel Hillhouse, on his guaranty of a promissory note, made by Nathaniel Hillhouse, for 122 dollars, 19 cents, dated the 15th of March 1822, payable to the plaintiff, or order, on demand, with interest. The declaration contained several counts, stating the case with some variations, on which no question arose.

IN ERROR. This was an action of assumpsit, brought originally before a justice of the peace, by Augustus Hyde, keeper of the county gaol in Norwich, against the town of Norwich, to recover for support furnished, by the plaintiff, to James Hazard and John Blake, prisoners in such gaol, from the 8th of October to the 27th of November, 1827.

in ERROR. Tins was a bill in chancery, brought by Brown against Green and Noyes, to set aside an award of arbitrators, and to stay proceedings at law on two promissory notes given to enforce performance of such award. Both the submission and the award were in writing, and were set forth at length in the plaintiff’s bill.

This was a bill in chancery, to obtain the correction of a mistake in a bond executed by the defendants, and to compel payment of the amount due on such bond according to the condition thereof. On the 17th of November, 1823, John W. Haughton was appointed, by the town of Montville, collector of the town taxes in that town. On the same day, a tax of three cents on the dollar on the list of 1823, was voted.

This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis, tried at Norwich, January term 1829, before Hosmer, Ch. J. The following are the material facts in the case. The town of Bozrah voted a tax upon the list of 1827. A list of assessments was duly made out; but an abstract of it was not left with the town-clerk until the 20th of December, 1827.

IN ERROR. This was an action of debt, brought by Francis A. Perkins, treasurer of the city of Norwich, prosecuting for the use and benefit of said city, against Joseph Perkinsto recover of the defendant, the penalties incurred by the breach of certain bylaws of the city. The writ was dated the 27th of May 1828, was served on the 28th, and was made returnable, and returned, to the city court of the city of Norwich, held on the second Monday of June 1828.

This was an action of ejectment for two parcels of land in Plainfield; tried, on the general issue, at Brooklyn, January term, 1829, before Daggett, J. The jury returned a special verdict, presenting the following case. On the 19th of April 1823, Asa Phillips made his last will, and soon afterwards died, leaving a widow, three sons, Asa, Charles and John, and four daughters, Mary, the wife of Samuel Bow, Abigail, the wife of Caleb Clark, Thirza Clark and Patty Phillips.