Day v. Lockwood
Supreme Court of Connecticut
These were actions of account, and were referred to auditors, who reported in favor of Day, in both cases. Lockwood filed remonstrances against the acceptance of their reports, and the superior court for Fairfield county, at the April term, 1855, found the facts therein arising, and reserved the cases for the advice of this court.
Read the full summary
These were actions of account, and were referred to auditors, who reported in favor of Day, in both cases. Lockwood filed remonstrances against the acceptance of their reports, and the superior court for Fairfield county, at the April term, 1855, found the facts therein arising, and reserved the cases for the advice of this court. In the suit of Day against Lockwood, the declaration contained two counts. - In the first, it was alleged that the defendant, from April 1, 1851, to January 1, 1853, was the bailiff and receiver of the plaintiff, and, as such, had the charge and management of the…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, C. J.
Upon examining the copies furnished us, in the present cases, we find that the proceedings have been in some respects irregular, informal, and perhaps defective. But we have not felt ourselves called upon to notice those proceedings, any further, than is necessary, to enable us to dispose of the several questions, which- have been made and discussed before us, by the parties. • Our opinion therefore must be considered as having reference to those questions, and nothing further.
1. The first question made, in reference to the ease of Day against Lockwood, is, that the auditors erred in taking…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Spencer v. UsherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1805
3Cited by7 opinions
- Kane v. KaneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Smith v. KnightSupreme Court of Iowa · 1893
- Sweeney v. NeelyMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- Gilman v. VaughanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1878
- Mickle v. PeetSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1875
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.