Stannard v. Whittlesey
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bill in chancery. The bill stated the following case. On the 20th of December 1820, the defendant was appointed, by the court of probate, guardian to the plaintiff, then a minor ; and gave bond, with surety, according to law.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery. The bill stated the following case. On the 20th of December 1820, the defendant was appointed, by the court of probate, guardian to the plaintiff, then a minor ; and gave bond, with surety, according to law. At that time, the plain-1 tiff owned real and personal estate of the value of 8000 dollars; and the defendant, as guardian, on the 10th of February 1821, received into his .possession all the personal estate of the plaintiff, consisting of household goods, wearing apparel; implements of husbandry, ready money, moneys due on book and out at interest, upon…
1Opinion of the Court
Daggett, Ch. J.
I think ail the discussion relative to the manner oí asking for a discovery, and whether the biil be insufficient for multifariousness, may be laid out of consideration, because, in my judgment, the plain tilt has adequate remedy at law; and if so, the superior court is prohibited, by positive legislative enactment, from holding jurisdiction.
An action on the bond may be sustained. No act of the court is necessary ; nor any demand oilier than that which is alleged to have been made. The plaintiff, when of full age, made a demand, which is set forth in the bill, with technical…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Hanson v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
- Davis v. AyresSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Pease v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834
- Adams v. TurnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1900
- Crain v. BurnettAppellate Court of Illinois · 1914
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.