Town of Canterbury v. Bennett
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This action, which was founded upon the statute “ concerning idiots, lunatics and spendthrifts,” was brought by the town of Canterbury to the superior court for Windham county, against John Bennett, to recover for expenses incurred in restraining and supporting one Hosmer Bennett, who was alleged to be a lunatic and distracted person, and the son of said John.
Read the full summary
This action, which was founded upon the statute “ concerning idiots, lunatics and spendthrifts,” was brought by the town of Canterbury to the superior court for Windham county, against John Bennett, to recover for expenses incurred in restraining and supporting one Hosmer Bennett, who was alleged to be a lunatic and distracted person, and the son of said John. The declaration alleged, that on the 7th day of March, 1850, one Hosmer Bennett was, and for a long time before had been, a resident of said town, and was, and ever since had continued to be, a lunatic, and distracted person, and…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
In the case of Pearl v. Rawdin, 5 Day, 244, it was decided, that the insufficiency of the declaration was no ground for a motion for a new trial; and the court thought the point so clear, that it refused to hear argument upon it, although it was stated, that the question was brought up in that form, by consent of parties. Again, in Minor v. Mead and another, 3 Conn. R., 289, it was held, that an error apparent on the record could not be taken advantage of, on a motion for a new trial. These cases were approved in Burr v. Broome, 4 Conn. R., 247, and the same principlqapplied to abill in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Pearl v. RawdinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1812
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kelly v. Strouse & Bros.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Adams v. WaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1864
- Aldrich v. ChubbMichigan Supreme Court · 1877