Tingley v. Cutler
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of debt,'to recover the sum of 150 dollars, commenced in January, 1826. The cause was tried, on the plea of nil debel, at Brooklyn. September term, 1827, before Brainard, J. The declaration consisted of two counts.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt,'to recover the sum of 150 dollars, commenced in January, 1826. The cause was tried, on the plea of nil debel, at Brooklyn. September term, 1827, before Brainard, J. The declaration consisted of two counts. In the first, the plaintiff stated, That on the 13th of December, 1825, and for a long time previous, he was, and ever since has been, the owner of certain real estate in the town of KHlingly, [describing it] being the same which the plaintiff bought of George B. Hutch-ins, by deed bearing date October 29th, 1825 ; that on said 13th of December, there were…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
Upon the trial, the defendants resisted the plaintiff’s claim, on five grounds, viz.
1. That the plaintiff showed no other title than an unrecorded deed from his immediate grantor.
2. That the plaintiff proved no consideration for the defendant’s promise.
3. That there was a material variance between the declaration and the testimony in the description of the notes to be taken up by the defendant.
*2954. That the action was premature, as the defendant was not bound to fulfil said contract, until the 1 si day of April, 1826.
5. That the damages were unliquidated, and as none were proved, none could be…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Lent v. PadelfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Goward v. WatersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Gobble v. LinderIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- City of New Britain v. New Britain Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Mosso v. LeeNevada Supreme Court · 1931
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.