Watson v. Watson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. The original action was replevin, instituted by John B. Watson against John Watson and others, before a justice of the peace. The declaration contained four counts ; in the first of which the defendants were charged with having taken and unjustly impounded the beasts therein described, (a) In the other counts no distress or impounding was alleged.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. The original action was replevin, instituted by John B. Watson against John Watson and others, before a justice of the peace. The declaration contained four counts ; in the first of which the defendants were charged with having taken and unjustly impounded the beasts therein described, (a) In the other counts no distress or impounding was alleged. The defendants pleaded, severally, that they did not take the plain-tiff⅛ beasts and impound the same, in manner and form as the plaintiff in his declaration had alleged ; upon which issue was joined, and upon which, after a trial,…
1Opinion of the CourtChurch, J.
1. The bill of exceptions is objectionable. It presents no question distinctly, and is not confined to any point or question made at the trial, but brings up, as on a demurrer to evidence, the whole of the plaintiff’s case. This practice is inadmissible. McDonald v. Fisher, Kirby 339. 1 Swift's
Dig. 771. 2 Tidd’s Prac. 786. & seq. [911.]
2. By the common law, the general issue of non cepit admits property in the plaintiff, and denies only the taking. The law of this state, as was determined in the case of Watson v. Watson & al. 9 Conn. Rep. 141. is essentially different from the common law, in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Allyn v. MatherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
3Cited by3 opinions
- Capen v. PeckhamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1868
- Picket v. AllenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834
- Dame v. DameSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1861