Woodruff v. Whittlesey
Connecticut Superior Court
This was an action of trover for a beifer. Plea, not guilty. Tbe plaintiff claimed tbe property of tbe beifer, by a transfer from Nathaniel Baldwin Woodruff, on tbe 24th day of October, 1788, in payment of a debt due to tbe plaintiff by note. Two witnesses testified to tbe sale: They said it was in tbe ■evening — that they were only called in to witness thé bill of sale, wbicb was written in another room.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trover for a beifer. Plea, not guilty. Tbe plaintiff claimed tbe property of tbe beifer, by a transfer from Nathaniel Baldwin Woodruff, on tbe 24th day of October, 1788, in payment of a debt due to tbe plaintiff by note. Two witnesses testified to tbe sale: They said it was in tbe ■evening — that they were only called in to witness thé bill of sale, wbicb was written in another room. They did mot see any note delivered up, but understood from the conversation, wbicb then passed between Baldwin Woodruff and tbe plaintiff, that a certain debt, due by note, was tbe…
1Opinion of the Court
By the whole Court.
The first exception is insufficient;, because the court, on motion in arrest, after a general verdict of the jury, cannot resort back to the evidence on which *62tbe verdict was founded, to set it aside, but must render judgment according to tbe facts found.
And, upon examination into tbe facts alleged in tbe second exception, it does not appear that there was any partiality in tbe juror, wbo is said to bave given bis opinion in tbe case, before tbe trial, as be declares be bad no remembrance of it; and although it was testified by two young men that they bad beard him, some…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Porter v. SeilerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1854
- Leinkauf v. BrinkerMississippi Supreme Court · 1884