Barnum v. Barnum
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action on a promissory note; to which there was a plea of non-assumpsit; and on that issue, the cause was tried, at Danbury, September term, 1830, before Daggett, J. The execution of the note was admitted. The defence was, that there was no consideration for it. It was given under the following circumstances.
Read the full summary
This was an action on a promissory note; to which there was a plea of non-assumpsit; and on that issue, the cause was tried, at Danbury, September term, 1830, before Daggett, J. The execution of the note was admitted. The defence was, that there was no consideration for it. It was given under the following circumstances. There were rumors afloat in the neighbourhood, where the parties lived, that a ticket of the combination numbers 12. 35. 43. had drawn a prize of 2000 dollars; a fourth part of which was owned by the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to purchase of the plaintiff, this fourth…
1Opinion of the CourtDaggett, J.
Upon a fuller consideration of the question in this case than I had given it at the trial, and upon further discussion at the bar and by my Brethren, I am convinced that the instruction given to the jury, was wrong; and that there ought to be a new trial. This, for aught which appears, was a fair speculation. Neither of the parties, as the facts shew, knew the fate of the ticket: it was, therefore, a bargain of hazard. In the absence of all fraud, it is not easy to see why the plaintiff should not recover, upon the principles of law. Trading in these tickets—tickets of a lottery granted by…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Osborne v. Locke Steel Chain Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Wolford v. PowersIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Johnston v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Clark's Appeal from CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1889
- Johnson v. TitusNew York Supreme Court · 1842
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.