Legal Opinion

Scott v. Hull

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided August 15, 1830PublishedCited by 4 opinions

This was an action on a covenant in the following terms: "This agreement made by and between Joseph Scott and Hazard, Hull, both of Willington, in Tolland county, witnesses, That whereas I, the said Hazard Hull, have and do, by these presents, agree and bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators, to provide for, and maintain and support the said ,Joseph Scott and Lucy Scott, his wife, with every thing necessary and comfortable, both in sickness and in health, during…

Read the full summary

This was an action on a covenant in the following terms: "This agreement made by and between Joseph Scott and Hazard, Hull, both of Willington, in Tolland county, witnesses, That whereas I, the said Hazard Hull, have and do, by these presents, agree and bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators, to provide for, and maintain and support the said ,Joseph Scott and Lucy Scott, his wife, with every thing necessary and comfortable, both in sickness and in health, during the natural life of the said Joseph Scott and Lucy, his wife ; in consideration of which, I, the said Joseph Scott, do…

1Opinion of the Court

Hosmer, Ch. J.

The plaintiff’s action is covenant on an indenture, stipulating to support him and his wife, during their natural lives; and the parties joined issue on the defendant’s plea of performance. The plaintiff was permitted to go forward in the proof and argument; and to this an objection is made.

In covenant, there is no general issue; and the defendant, by his plea of performance, assumed the burden of proof, and equally as on a plea of full payment, his was the right of opening and closing the argument. 1 Chitt. Plead. 482. 2 Chitt. Plead. 481, 627.

But the error of the court is no…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
  2. Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Drouin v. WilsonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1907
  2. Young v. StephensMichigan Supreme Court · 1862
  3. Vertrees v. Tennessee Auto CorporationCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1927
  4. In re Stewart ChurchNew York County Court, Rensselaer County · 1883

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API