Isham v. Downer
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of ejectment for a piece of land in Colchester; tried, on the general issue, at Norwich, January adjourned term, 1830, before Peters, J. The plaintiff claimed title by the levy of an execution in his favour against Elias W. Newton. The judgment on which that execution issued, was rendered in an action brought by the plaintiff against Newton, by writ of attachment, in common form, and served on the 9th of June 1827, by attaching the land in question.
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment for a piece of land in Colchester; tried, on the general issue, at Norwich, January adjourned term, 1830, before Peters, J. The plaintiff claimed title by the levy of an execution in his favour against Elias W. Newton. The judgment on which that execution issued, was rendered in an action brought by the plaintiff against Newton, by writ of attachment, in common form, and served on the 9th of June 1827, by attaching the land in question. The defendant claimed title under a deed from Newton to E. W. Parsons and Amherst D. Scovill, executed and recorded, on the…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
By statute, tit. “Civil Actions,” p. 4. rev. 1702. it was provided, “ That it shall be in the liberty of any person to take out either a summons or an attachment, in any civil action, against any person, his goods and chattels, and in want of goods and chattels, the lands of the defendant, or his person, may be attached.” In prescribing the forms of writs, the legislature put a construction on this section of the statute: “Attach the goods or estate of N. B. to the value of and for want thereof, take the body of said N. B.”—(Stat. 43.163. rev. 1702.)—thereby giving to the plaintiff the choice…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Spencer v. ChampionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1838
- Young v. MitchellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878