Segur v. Tingley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was a bill in chancery, seeking relief from a certain contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The facts stated in the bill and found by the committee, are the following.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery, seeking relief from a certain contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. The facts stated in the bill and found by the committee, are the following. In July, 1832, the defendant and Nehemiah Daniels and James M. Gates were manufacturers in company, under the firm of Daniels, Gates & Co., at Willimantic in this state, and were owners of a mill for the manufacture of satinets, which they purchased of Gray, Byrne Smith, ior 2,300 dollars, and gave their individual notes, each for one third part thereof, which now remain unpaid. Daniels and Gates…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Ch. J.
It is claimed, on the part of the plaintiff, that this contract was entered into, under such circumstances, that he is entitled to relief in a court of equity.
The claim must be founded upon the supposition of fraud, accident or mistake.
It is not claimed, that there is any accident, which is a ground for interposition. The plaintiff must, then, rely either upon fraud or mistake.
With respect to fraud, although it is not expressly negated, by the court, there are no facts from which it can be fairly in*141ferred. The defendant did not even make the application to the plaintiff to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- White v. Territory of WashingtonWashington Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by5 opinions
- Grimes v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Kowalke v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Northwest Thresher Co. v. McNinchSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. WinslowNew York Supreme Court · 1864
- Troy Iron & Nail Factory v. WinslowNew York Supreme Court · 1864