Crocker v. Fox
Supreme Court of Connecticut
ActxoN of waste, declaring, that the plaintiff was seized of tbe reversion of a certain tract of land in fee, described in the declaration, of which the defendants were tenants in dower in right of the wife, for her life; that she had cut and destroyed the timber and wood, standing upon said land, and committed waste to the disinheriting and damage of the plaintiff, etc. Plea — ’Not guilty. Issue to the jury. The jury found for the plaintiff, and £20 damages.
Read the full summary
ActxoN of waste, declaring, that the plaintiff was seized of tbe reversion of a certain tract of land in fee, described in the declaration, of which the defendants were tenants in dower in right of the wife, for her life; that she had cut and destroyed the timber and wood, standing upon said land, and committed waste to the disinheriting and damage of the plaintiff, etc. Plea — ’Not guilty. Issue to the jury. The jury found for the plaintiff, and £20 damages. Motion in arrest — That the declaration is insufficient, not being maintainable against tenant in dower. Judgment — That the motion is…
1Opinion of the Court
Exception — That this action was given in England by the Statute of Marl bridge, 52 Hen. 3d, which does not extend here. To which it was answered, that true said statute does not extend here; yet it is reasonable there should be a remedy in such cases, for the reversioner to recover his damages, and that reason was universal and ought to govern here. Judgment — Declaration sufficient. See Rose v. Hays, action of waste against tenant by the curtesy. New Haven, January Term, A. D. 1791.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Stedman v. FortuneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825