Hammick v. Bronson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. Ejectment for one undivided third part of a certain piece of land in Cheshire. The cause was tried before the Superior Court, upon the plea of no wrong or disseisin ; and a verdict was found for the plaintiffs. The writ and declaration were as follows, vis. “ Then and there to answer unto Isaac Hammick and Lucinda liammick, his wife,’" Ac.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. Ejectment for one undivided third part of a certain piece of land in Cheshire. The cause was tried before the Superior Court, upon the plea of no wrong or disseisin ; and a verdict was found for the plaintiffs. The writ and declaration were as follows, vis. “ Then and there to answer unto Isaac Hammick and Lucinda liammick, his wife,’" Ac. “ in a plea that to the plaintiffs, the defendant render the seisin, and quiet and peaceable possession of one undivided third part of a certain piece of land, hounded,” &c. “ Whereupon Hie plaintiffs declare and say, that at…
1Opinion of the CourtIxcersolij, J.
(After stating the case.) The first question is, whether it was proper to admit witnesses to swear to ihe cohabitation, and reputation of marriage of the plaintiffs ? I am of opinion that it was proper. I take it to be fully settled, both in this State, and it Qrcat-Britain, that the fact of marriage may be proved, by evidence of this kind, in all cases, except in prosecutions for bigamy, and in actions for criminal conversation with the wife. I know not, indeed, *294hit that in this Stale, it h nece.,sai.. 1,-n r di-i.-t i , j-j* n^. of the marriage, in a prosecution for aduttteij.
As Io flic…
2Cited by8 opinions
- O'Gara v. . EisenlohrNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Imboden v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1905
- In re the Estate of ErlangerNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
- Henderson v. CargillMississippi Supreme Court · 1856
- Honey v. ClarkTexas Supreme Court · 1873
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.