Tucker v. Jewett
Supreme Court of Connecticut
General Assumpsit. Facts found by an auditor, and judgment rendered by the superior court (Park, I,) for the plaintiff. Motion in error by the defendant. The case will be sufficiently understood from the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMcOurdy, J.
The judgment of the superior court appears to us erroneous on both of the questions raised at the trial.
1. It is found by the auditor that certain articles of per. sonal property belonging to the plaintiff were left with the defendant as a mere depositary without any right of detention, and were to be returned specifically on demand. Among the things thus left was a promissory note in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant' for fifty dollars. That identical note was to be redelivered to the plaintiff whenever he should request it. He made the request and was refused. It does not appear…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Henry v. ButlerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1864
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ayres v. FrenchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1874
- Lovell v. Hammond Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Watson v. SteverMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Capitol City Lumber Co. v. SudarskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1920
- Kanbar v. Betsos, No. Cv90 0109247 (Apr. 13, 1992)Connecticut Superior Court · 1992
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.