Hotchkiss v. Butler
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of ejectment. The declaration, containing but one count, was as follows : That to the plaintiffs the defendants render the seisin and peaceable possession of two certain tracts or parcels of land, [describing them] containing thirty five acres, with all the buildings thereon, together with all the tools, machinery and fixtures for making brass and wood clocks ; both of which tracts of land, said machinery, fixtures and tools, the plaintiffs, on or about…
Read the full summary
This was an action of ejectment. The declaration, containing but one count, was as follows : That to the plaintiffs the defendants render the seisin and peaceable possession of two certain tracts or parcels of land, [describing them] containing thirty five acres, with all the buildings thereon, together with all the tools, machinery and fixtures for making brass and wood clocks ; both of which tracts of land, said machinery, fixtures and tools, the plaintiffs, on or about the 28th day of July, 1845, were well seised and possessed of, in their own right in fee, and so continued thereof…
1Opinion of the CourtStoers, J.
Conceding that the declaration in this case, which contains only one count, alleges an ouster of several distinct pieces of land, the question is, whether it is, on that account, bad for duplicity.
The plaintiffs in error insist, that the general rule of pleading, that each count in a declaration must contain only one cause of action, is applicable to our action of ejectment, and that, under that rule, this declaration is objectionable.
*289This principle undoubtedly applies to most actions ; but a defect of this description is always deemed to be one of mere form ; and there has evidently been,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- New London City National Bank v. Ware River RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1874
- Peoples National Bank v. NickersonSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1910