Champion v. Hartshorne
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit; tried at Middletown, February term, 1833, before Daggett, J. The defendant, having pleaded the general issue, gave notice, that under this issue, he should give' in evidence a contract, entered into between him and the plaintiff, under the hands of the parties, but not under seal, on the 14th of November 1831, by which the defendant stipulated to perform the various duties (specified in detail) of a superintendent of the…
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit; tried at Middletown, February term, 1833, before Daggett, J. The defendant, having pleaded the general issue, gave notice, that under this issue, he should give' in evidence a contract, entered into between him and the plaintiff, under the hands of the parties, but not under seal, on the 14th of November 1831, by which the defendant stipulated to perform the various duties (specified in detail) of a superintendent of the plaintiff’s cotton manufactory, from the date of the contract until the 1st of April 1832; and the plaintiff, on his…
1Opinion of the Court
Bisselx. J.
No question arises on the construction the contract set forth in the defendant’s notice, and by virtue of which he justifies his entry. It is a mere agreement for services, to be rendered by the one party, and to be compensated, by the other.
On the trial, the attention of the judge seems to have been drawn to the question, whether the agreement was any thing more than a mere licence from the plaintiff to the defendant, to enter the manufactory. And upon this question, the charge is undoubtedly correct. This agreement is something *576more than a licence. It is a contract, containing…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Beckwith v. AngellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1823
- Whitney v. First Ecclesiastical Society in BrooklynSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1824
- Miller v. WardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1818