Smith v. Brush
Supreme Court of Connecticut
due. This was an action of account. For an abstract of the de- claration and pleadings, see 10 Conn. Rep. 168, 9. A new trial having been refused, by the advice of this court, in 1834, auditors were subsequently appointed, by the superior court, who made their report in favour of the plaintiff, for 98 dollars, 32 cents.
Read the full summary
due. This was an action of account. For an abstract of the de- claration and pleadings, see 10 Conn. Rep. 168, 9. A new trial having been refused, by the advice of this court, in 1834, auditors were subsequently appointed, by the superior court, who made their report in favour of the plaintiff, for 98 dollars, 32 cents. To the acceptance of this report the defendant remonstrated, on the following grounds: 1. That when the cause was on trial before the auditors, the plaintiff offered evidence to prove, that after the commencement of the suit, viz. on the 15th of February, 1832, he paid, in…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Ch. J.
It is claimed, that the sum of 84 dollars, 50 cents, was paid, by the plaintiff, under an order of a surrogate’s court in the state of New-York; the effect of which was examined in a former trial of this cause between these par*365ties. 10 Conn. Rep. 167. And the defendant now objects to this allowance to the plaintiff, because it was not a partnership debt; because it accrued since the commencement of this suit; and because it was paid by compulsion, as much so, as if taken by force; and the defendant cannot, therefore, be considered as receiver of this sum: there was no privity…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. BrushSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834
3Cited by3 opinions
- Baldwin v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1838
- Towns of Winchester & Colebrook v. HinsdaleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Lee v. AbramsIllinois Supreme Court · 1850