Arnold v. Kellogg
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trespass qu. cl.fr., brought originally to the superior court; to which the general issue was pleaded. The cause was tried at Hartford, at the term holden in December 1855, when the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, for five dollars damages and her costs. The court accepted the verdict, and made the following certificate.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass qu. cl.fr., brought originally to the superior court; to which the general issue was pleaded. The cause was tried at Hartford, at the term holden in December 1855, when the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, for five dollars damages and her costs. The court accepted the verdict, and made the following certificate. “ I certify, that upon the trial of the above entitled cause to the jury, upon the plea of the general issue, the defendant, admitting his entries upon a part of the land in the plaintiff’s declaration mentioned, claimed that he was…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The question in this case is the same in substance, as was decided in Bishop v. Seeley, 18 Conn. R., 389, and must be governed by that decision. To the doctrine of that case we expressed our adherence in the late case of Mansfield v. Church, 21 Conn. R., 73.
There must be some limit to the exception'as to costs3 contained in the 152d section of the act for the regulation of civil actions, or, as was said in the case of Bishop v. Seeley, a party would be entitled to full costs in an action of slander, or assault and battery, where the title to land should incidentally come in question on the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- White v. FullerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1869