Hawley v. Parrott
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of book debt. By the writ, which was dated the 4th of February, 1835, the defendants were required “ to appear before the county court, to be holden at Fairfield, within and for the county of Fairfield, on the third Tuesday of March [then] next.” The defendants appeared and pleaded as follows : “ T. & F. W. Hawley v. Parrott & Hubbell.
Read the full summary
This was an action of book debt. By the writ, which was dated the 4th of February, 1835, the defendants were required “ to appear before the county court, to be holden at Fairfield, within and for the county of Fairfield, on the third Tuesday of March [then] next.” The defendants appeared and pleaded as follows : “ T. & F. W. Hawley v. Parrott & Hubbell. Fairfield county, county court, January term, 1835. — “ Now, the defendants in court, on this 19th day of the session of said term, holden at Fairfield, on the 1st Thursday of January, 1835, and continued by adjournment to this day,…
1Opinion of the CourtBissell, J.
The principal question presented by this re- , , ¶ # and, indeed, the only one, which has been insisted on, m the argument, is, whether an action may be brought to an adjourned court, when the court is adjourned to a distant time.
It has been objected, by the defendants’ counsel, that the court is holden, and is described as holden, only on the first day of the term ; and that an adjournment to a distant time, does notvary or affect the principle; that it is still a continuation of the statute term ; that the court is still considered as holden on the first day only; and that there is no…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Cutler v. WadsworthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stone v. StevensSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Camp v. BatesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
- Town of Huntington v. BirchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Mansfield v. Mutual Benefit Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1893