Woodruff v. Westcott
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. This was an action on a promissory note for 50 dollars, dated April 5th, 1832, and payable twenty months after date, brought to the county’court, by Hiram Westcott, the promisee, against John L. Woodruff and David Butler, the makers.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was an action on a promissory note for 50 dollars, dated April 5th, 1832, and payable twenty months after date, brought to the county’court, by Hiram Westcott, the promisee, against John L. Woodruff and David Butler, the makers. The defendants filed the following motion : “ Now, the defendants, in court, on the second day of the session, file this their motion, and allege, that they verily believe, that the note on which, &c. on or about the 1st day of November, 1833, at Winchester, in the county of Litchfield, was sold, by the plaintiff, to William S. Holabird, Esq. of said…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
The statute of this state, entitled “ An act to prevent unlawful maintenance” provides, “that no attorney or counsellor at law, sheriff, deputy sheriff or constable shall buy any bond, bill, promissory writing, book debt, or other chose in action, unless in payment for estate sold,” &c. : and that “it shall be lawful for any defendant in any suit brought on any bond” &c. “ to file his motion,” “if before any county court,” “alleging, that he verily believes, that the bond,” &c. “ bath been sold contrary to the provisions of the act, and praying the court to enquire into the truth thereof, by…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Paine v. TildenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1848
- Sargeant v. SargeantSupreme Court of Vermont · 1846
- Butler v. ElliottSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
- Abbott v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1847