Bartholomew v. Clark
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action on the case for false and fraudulent representations respecting the responsibility of a mercantile house, whereby the plaintiff was induced to sell them goods to a large amount on a credit, in consequence of which he sustained a loss. The cause was tried at Litchfield, February term, 1816, before Edmond, Smith and Hosmer, Js.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on the case for false and fraudulent representations respecting the responsibility of a mercantile house, whereby the plaintiff was induced to sell them goods to a large amount on a credit, in consequence of which he sustained a loss. The cause was tried at Litchfield, February term, 1816, before Edmond, Smith and Hosmer, Js. The questions of fact, whether the representations were made by the defendant with a fraudulent intent, and whether the plaintiff was deceived by them, being submitted to the jury upon the evidence, they found a verdict for the plaintiff, with 2747…
1Opinion of the Court
Swift, Ch. J.
The question in this case is, whether the superior court have a legal power to grant a new trial where the verdict is against evidence.
To all courts acting on the principles of the common law, the power is incidental to grant new trials for various causes, among which one is, that the verdict was against evidence. This has ever been done in England, as well as in sundry states in the union. Courts in this state, then, acting according to the common law, have this power, unless prohibited by positive law. The statute respecting this subject authorizes courts to grant new trials, “…
2Cited by19 opinions
- State v. HamlinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1879
- State v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
- Murray v. KrenzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- State v. GannonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Loomis v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.