Smith v. Carr
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trespass for taking a certain carriage. The cause was tried, on the general issue, at New-Haven, January term, 1844, before Hinman, J. On the trial, it being proved, that the defendants took the carriage in question out of the possession of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs purchased it of Jared Foot, who claimed to have previously purchased it of Edwin Lee, the defendants claimed, and offered evidence to prove, that it was, at the time of Foot’s…
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass for taking a certain carriage. The cause was tried, on the general issue, at New-Haven, January term, 1844, before Hinman, J. On the trial, it being proved, that the defendants took the carriage in question out of the possession of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs purchased it of Jared Foot, who claimed to have previously purchased it of Edwin Lee, the defendants claimed, and offered evidence to prove, that it was, at the time of Foot’s purchase of it, owned by English and Mix, two of the defendants, and that Carr, the other defendant, took it, by writ of…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
If the expression, “and Foot knew it,” in that part of the charge of the court below, where the jury were told, that, “if Lee was restricted in his agency, and Foot knew it, &c.,” could have led the jury to suppose, that it was necessary for the protection of the principal, that the person who deals with a special agent, should have knowledge of such agent’s limited powers; and if this, under the circumstances of the case, could have altered, or in any way affected, the verdict, to the prejudice of the defendants; then, without doubt, the charge cannot be supported, and the defendants are…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Magness v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- McGregor v. ArmillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1855
- Hamer v. First National Bank of OgdenUtah Supreme Court · 1893
- McCornick v. SadlerUtah Supreme Court · 1894