Enos v. Tuttle
Supreme Court of Connecticut
A new trial having been granted, pursuant to the decision ante 27. 30. this cause was again tried, at Hartford, September term, 1819, before Brainard, J. To prove the fraudulent combination, claimed by the plaintiff, between Green Bixby and Julius Bixby, the plaintiff offered in evidence the admissions of Green Bixby, made at a time subsequent to the execution of the note in question, and the transfer of it to Guernsey, that it was given by the defendant for certain horses,…
Read the full summary
A new trial having been granted, pursuant to the decision ante 27. 30. this cause was again tried, at Hartford, September term, 1819, before Brainard, J. To prove the fraudulent combination, claimed by the plaintiff, between Green Bixby and Julius Bixby, the plaintiff offered in evidence the admissions of Green Bixby, made at a time subsequent to the execution of the note in question, and the transfer of it to Guernsey, that it was given by the defendant for certain horses, which, in fact, belonged to him, Green Bix-by, but was made payable to Julius Bixby, for the sole purpose of keeping the…
1ConcurrencePeters, J.
I concur with the Chief Justice in rejecting the declarations of Green Bixby, but not in admitting his deposition. The latter point is so nearly allied to one decided in Beach v. Swift, 2 Conn. Rep. 269., that it may be said, “ mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur.” As the authority of that case is admitted, I shall not attempt to vindicate it : indeed, an unanimous decision of the nine judges needs not my support. It remains, then, only to shew the similarity of the two cases. Both are against garnishees, who admit themselves indebted to third persons. Both plaintiffs claim these debts to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Beach v. SwiftSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817