Peck v. Sill
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at New-London. January term, 1819, before Swift, Ch. J. and Brainard and Chapman, Js. On the 6th of August, 1817, the plaintiff prayed out a writ of attachment against William Hall and Robbins, of the city of New-York, describing them as merchants in company? under the firm of Hall Robbins, on which the land demanded was attached as the property of Hall.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of ejectment, tried at New-London. January term, 1819, before Swift, Ch. J. and Brainard and Chapman, Js. On the 6th of August, 1817, the plaintiff prayed out a writ of attachment against William Hall and Robbins, of the city of New-York, describing them as merchants in company? under the firm of Hall Robbins, on which the land demanded was attached as the property of Hall. Afterwards, on the same day, the defendant attached the land as the property of Hall. Both writs were returned to the county court; and the suits were continued to the term of that court, in March, 1818…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
By his attachment, the plaintiff obtained priority of lien. The amendment, however, which the county court permitted him to make, constituted a nezo ground of action, against a nezo party ; and by reason of it, the lien was annulled. The construction of the statute concerning amendments has, with much propriety, been very liberal; but it has not been, and cannot be, extended to an alteration, which varies the ground of the action, ánd introduces a new party on the record. A debt due from Hall & Robbins has no identity with a debt due from Hall only ; and the natural person Hall…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Final v. BackusMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
- Dunnett v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1900
- Johnson v. HuntingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1838
- Starr v. LyonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Union Manufacturing, Co. v. PitkinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.