Smith v. Allen
Supreme Court of Connecticut
in ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, originally brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error. The declaration was of the following tenor, viz.
Read the full summary
in ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, originally brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiffs in error. The declaration was of the following tenor, viz. “ For that the defendants, in and by a certain writing or note, under their hands, by them well executed, dated the 30th day of August, A. D. 1808, promised the plaintiff, to pay to him, for value received, the sum of ninety-four dollars, ninety-one cents, on demand ; which is in the words following : ‘ Due John Allen ninety-four dolíais, 01 cents, on demand. Litch-field, August 30th, 1808. Joseph L. Smith, Seth P. Beers.' “…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
This was a writ of error, brought by the defendants in the court below, to reverse a judgment rendered against them in that court.
The declaration was in common form, in assumpsit, counting upon a promissory note, and demanding 100 dollars, damages. To this, there was a demurrer and joinder in demurrer. The writing counted upon, and recited in the declaration, was of the following tenor, vis. “ Due John Allen ninety-four dollars, 91 cents. Litchfield, August 30th, 1808.
Joseph L. Smith,
Seth P. Beers.”
The court below, adjudged the declaration to be sufficient, and rendered judgment for the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hartford & New-Haven Rail Road v. KennedySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1838
- Currier v. LockwoodSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1873
- Carling Tool Machine Co., Inc. v. LapointeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Hinsdale v. EellsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1820
- Wiksris v. the Chieppo CompanyConnecticut Superior Court · 1936