Beam v. Barnum
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of debt on judgment. The judgment set forth in the declaration was one rendered by the county court of Fairfield county, on the first Tuesday of February, 1839, in which the present plaintiffs, viz., John V. Beam and Levi Lyon, surviving partners of the late firm of Clark, Beam & Co. recovered of Phineas T. Barnum, the present defendant, and Horace Fairchild, since deceased, partners, under the firm of Barnum & Fairchild, the sum of 779 dollars, 47 cents,…
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt on judgment. The judgment set forth in the declaration was one rendered by the county court of Fairfield county, on the first Tuesday of February, 1839, in which the present plaintiffs, viz., John V. Beam and Levi Lyon, surviving partners of the late firm of Clark, Beam & Co. recovered of Phineas T. Barnum, the present defendant, and Horace Fairchild, since deceased, partners, under the firm of Barnum & Fairchild, the sum of 779 dollars, 47 cents, debt, and 13 dollars, 43 cents, costs of suit. The present action was brought against Barnum, as surviving partner of…
1Opinion of the CourtEllsworth, J.
In the argument of this case, a wider range was taken, by counsel, than we think it necessary to follow, in order to decide the chief question in dispute.
That the debt is in the form of a judgment of a court of record, in this state, we deem unimportant, inasmuch as the *204locality which attaches to it, for some purposes, can have nothing to do with the question, whether the debt is discharged, by a composition and release. Nor is the question of the legal effect of a receipt in full, executed in this state, important. Nor the peculiar phraseology of this receipt, as whether, if executed in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Taft v. Valley Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
- Gates v. SteeleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
- In re KerrNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Bantz v. BasnettWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877