Rogers v. Hurd
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION f<^ new trial. This was *n action of ejectment for a lot of land in Chatham. t|fc.The defendant pleaded the general issue. Ob the trial, it was admitted, that said Rebecca was well seised of the premises on the 13th of August, 1794, she being then a feme sole, of the name of Rebecca Hunt, and an infant.
Read the full summary
MOTION f<^ new trial. This was *n action of ejectment for a lot of land in Chatham. t|fc.The defendant pleaded the general issue. Ob the trial, it was admitted, that said Rebecca was well seised of the premises on the 13th of August, 1794, she being then a feme sole, of the name of Rebecca Hunt, and an infant. The defendant, to prove that she had no title after that time, offered in evidence a quitclaim deed of the premises, of that date, executed by her and -Nathaniel Roane, her then lawful guardian, for a valuable consideration, to Job Roane; and stated, that he was able to prove that said…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
This case depends on the construction of the second section of the act relatil% to masters and servants or apprentices, which is as follows : “ That no person under the government of a parent, guardian or master, shall be capable to make any contract or bargain, which in the law shall be accounted valid, unless the said person be authorized or allowed so to contract, by his or her parent, guardian or master; in which case such parent, guardian or master shall be bound thereby.*61(a) This law is very inaccurately penned. A literal construction would prohibit infants from making…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Kline v. BeebeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
- Henry v. . RootNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Fetrow v. WisemanIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- Law v. LongIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
- Hastings v. DollarhideCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.