Willoughby v. Raymond
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit, for the use and occupation of land. The plaintiff, in his declaration, stated, That on the 5th of April, 1817, the defendant hired of the plaintiff his farm in Canterbury, for the term of three years then to come; and in consideration thereof, the defendant, then and there, gave, executed and delivered to the plaintiff his certain writing, in the words and figures following, viz.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, for the use and occupation of land. The plaintiff, in his declaration, stated, That on the 5th of April, 1817, the defendant hired of the plaintiff his farm in Canterbury, for the term of three years then to come; and in consideration thereof, the defendant, then and there, gave, executed and delivered to the plaintiff his certain writing, in the words and figures following, viz. “April 5th, 1817. Whereas I have this day hired of Joseph R. Willoughby, his farm in Canterbury, I hereby agree and promise to pay to the said Willoughby, at the expiration of one…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
The evidence offered in this case was undoubtedly admissible. The writing recited in the plaintiff’s declaration was a perfect transcript of it; and the allegation that the defendant executed the writing, by his testimony proved to be authentic, was unquestionably supported.
The judge omitted to instruct the jury, that the above-mentioned writing, the only evidence adduced, did not support the promise laid in the plaintiff’s declaration; and in this particular, the proceeding below was manifestly erroneous. The promise averred was incorrect, for two reasons. In the first place,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Russell v. South Britain SocietySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1833
- McLendon v. GodfreySupreme Court of Alabama · 1841