Maples v. Wightman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action on a promissory note, brought originally before the Norwich city court. The plaintiff declared, “that the defendant, Valentine Wightman, in and by a certain writing or note, under his hand, by him well executed, in the city of Norwich, dated the 15th day of May, 1818, promised the plaintiff, jointly and severally with Elisha Wightman, to pay to him, or order, for value received, 75 dollars, with interest, in thirty days from date.”
Read the full summary
This was an action on a promissory note, brought originally before the Norwich city court. The plaintiff declared, “that the defendant, Valentine Wightman, in and by a certain writing or note, under his hand, by him well executed, in the city of Norwich, dated the 15th day of May, 1818, promised the plaintiff, jointly and severally with Elisha Wightman, to pay to him, or order, for value received, 75 dollars, with interest, in thirty days from date.” The defendant pleaded non assumpsit; and, on this issue, the cause was tried at New-London, October term, 1821, before Peters, J. It was…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
The plaintiff has declared on a promissory note, made in the city of Norwich; and, under the plea of non-assumpsit, it appeared to have been executed by the defendant, when an infant, under the government of a guardian, and at Bozrah, without the said city, and as the surety of Elisha Wightman.
The declaration of the plaintiff would have been insufficient, unless it had contained the averment, that the note was executed within the city of Norwich. Wooster v. Parsons, Kirby 27. On a point so perfectly familiar as this, all argument is superfluous. It has often been established, by…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rogers v. HurdSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1809
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kline v. BeebeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
- Bowyer v. KnappWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- Fetrow v. WisemanIndiana Supreme Court · 1872
- Griswold v. MatherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Walker v. Stokes Bros. & Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.