Hillhouse v. Dunning
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. An action for a libel having been brought, by Dunning against Hillhouse, which was tried in the superior court, at Fairfield, December term, 1824 ; and the plaintiff having obtained a verdict ; the defendant procured the record to be transmitted to this Court, for revision in error ; and after argument, the judgment of the superior court was affirmed.(a) Hillhouse then brought the present writ of error, assigning for error, that “ said superior court did never…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. An action for a libel having been brought, by Dunning against Hillhouse, which was tried in the superior court, at Fairfield, December term, 1824 ; and the plaintiff having obtained a verdict ; the defendant procured the record to be transmitted to this Court, for revision in error ; and after argument, the judgment of the superior court was affirmed.(a) Hillhouse then brought the present writ of error, assigning for error, that “ said superior court did never grant or deny said motion in error, and said cause, on said motion in error, was never before the supreme court of errors.”…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
The act of May 1823, (p. 27.) provides for the revision of cases, by motions in error, and empowers the court to allow the motion, if the party moving shall give sufficient security for prosecution.
The contest between the parties is merely this. The plaintiff in error insists, that the law requires an allowance of the motion expressly, after bonds have been given; while the defendant contends, that the allow mce need not be express ; that it is an act of the court prior to the reception of bonds ; and that the act of taking bonds, by implication, is an allowance of the motion.
The…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Eagle Bank of New-Haven v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. PenaConnecticut Appellate Court · 1988
- State v. RoweConnecticut Superior Court · 1962
- State v. RoweConnecticut Appellate Court · 1962