Lord v. Russell
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action by the payee of a promissory note against the maker; brought to the City Court of New Haven and tried to the jury before Cable, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant.
Read the full summary
Action by the payee of a promissory note against the maker; brought to the City Court of New Haven and tried to the jury before Cable, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant. The first count of the complaint, and the onty one now material, was as follows: “ 1. On May 29, 1886, the defendant by his note promised to pay to the order of Annis J. Lord six hundred dollars six months after date, at the office of Henry E. Pardee, New Haven: Value received. “ 2. Said note is now thé property of the plaintiff, and the same has not been paid except twenty-five dollars. “…
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, C. J.
We think there was no error. The note itself being made a part of the complaint showed on its face that it had been executed by the defendant. The form is the same as that used in the Practice Act; form 212. The averment that the note was thfe property of the plaintiff implied a delivery to her. It is a rule of pleading that there need be no direct allegation of a fact which otherwise sufficiently appears; nor of a fact necessarily implied from the other averments. 1 Chitty Pleading, 225. Bliss on Code Pleading, § 176. The delivery, even of a deed, although essential to its validity, need not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Prindle v. . CaruthersNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wexler Construction Co. v. Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1956
- Wachtel v. RosolSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Brockett v. Fair Haven & Westville RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1900
- Kirkbride v. BartzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
- Morehouse v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.