Cone v. East Haddam Bank
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Bill in equity, brought to the Superior Court for Middlesex county, and heard, on general demurrer to the bill, before Phelps, J. The bill alleged that in the year 1863 the petitioner deposited with Thomas C. Boardman, of East Haddam, for safe keeping, to be re-delivered .to him on demand, two bonds issued by the government of the United States, known as 5-20 coupon bonds, one bond of the denomination and value of one thousand dollars, and the other bond of the denomination…
Read the full summary
Bill in equity, brought to the Superior Court for Middlesex county, and heard, on general demurrer to the bill, before Phelps, J. The bill alleged that in the year 1863 the petitioner deposited with Thomas C. Boardman, of East Haddam, for safe keeping, to be re-delivered .to him on demand, two bonds issued by the government of the United States, known as 5-20 coupon bonds, one bond of the denomination and value of one thousand dollars, and the other bond of the denomination and value of five hundred dollars ; also an order drawn by the selectmen of the town of East Haddam upon the treasurer…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The only question -in this case is, whether the petitioner, upon the facts stated in the bill, has-adequate remedy at law. If he has, it is conceded that the bill is insufficient.
The averments in the bill show that the bonds and order theréin described are held by the bank as bailee merely. They were simply deposited with Boardman for safe keeping, to be re-delivered to the petitioner on demand. They retained essentially the same character after they came into the possession of the bank, as they had while in the possession of Board-man. There is no averment that any one of the articles…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McIntyre v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1928
- Surber's Adm'r v. McClinticWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Pattison v. SkillmanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1881