Rossiter v. Marsh
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit, in three counts. In the first, the plaintiff declared, “That the defendant, at New-Hartford, on the 13th day of July, 1819, in and by a certain writing or note, by him well executed, dated the said 13th day of July, 1819, promised the plaintiff, to pay to him, or order, twenty-five dollars, on demand, with interest.”
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, in three counts. In the first, the plaintiff declared, “That the defendant, at New-Hartford, on the 13th day of July, 1819, in and by a certain writing or note, by him well executed, dated the said 13th day of July, 1819, promised the plaintiff, to pay to him, or order, twenty-five dollars, on demand, with interest.” The second count stated, “That at New-Hartford, on the 13th day of July, 1819, the defendant, in and by a certain writing or note, executed by and on behalf of the defendant, by his agent, one George Marsh, of said New-Hartford, who was thereto…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
The first count in the plaintiff’s declaration, is on a promissory note, executed by the defendant, and not averred to have been for value received. The note exhibited in evidence, purports to be for value received; and hence is materially variant from the one declared upon. It likewise appears to have been executed by George Marsh, without any addition or qualification, and obliges him personally, but is not the act and deed of the defendant. These variances are palpable and fatal.
The second count in the plaintiff’s declaration, is equally unsupported by the note produced in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Allen v. LymanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
- United States v. KauhoeDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 1905