Granger v. Bissell
Supreme Court of Connecticut
In the Court below, rTl X HIS was an application in chancery, to procure a correction in the finding of a former decree. The case was, that Seth Smith, on the 26th of April, 1784, mortgaged a piece of land to Samuel Lyman, Esq. for the payment of 80/. within two months ; which was not paid until after the expiration of that time.
Read the full summary
In the Court below, rTl X HIS was an application in chancery, to procure a correction in the finding of a former decree. The case was, that Seth Smith, on the 26th of April, 1784, mortgaged a piece of land to Samuel Lyman, Esq. for the payment of 80/. within two months ; which was not paid until after the expiration of that time. On the 15th of March, 1790, Smith conveyed the same land to Oliver Granger, by an absolute deed ; whereupon Granger entered into, and continued in possession, but neglected to get his eed recorded. On the 14th of December, 1796, Noah lissell, attached the land, as…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
The judgment was affirmed, (d)
The reporter understood, that it was on the last point only, that the case was decided in this Court.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Gannon v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- Parsons v. PlattSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871
- White v. Trinity ChurchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823