Treadwell v. Bulkley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of partition, alleging that the plaintiffs and defendants held together, as tenants in common, ° 1 a certain piece of land in Middletown, containing about , . , , , . six acres, in such manner and proportion that the plaintiffs were entitled to have five elevenths of one sixth part of the same in severalty, and the defendants the ver sidue.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action of partition, alleging that the plaintiffs and defendants held together, as tenants in common, ° 1 a certain piece of land in Middletown, containing about , . , , , . six acres, in such manner and proportion that the plaintiffs were entitled to have five elevenths of one sixth part of the same in severalty, and the defendants the ver sidue. The defendants pleaded that they did not hold together with the plaintiffs, in manner and proportion as alleged in the declaration. At the trial on this issue, it appeared that Gershorn Bulkley, one of the…
1Opinion of the CourtReeve, J.
(After stating the case.) It does not appear from the motion on what ground the objection to Hinsdale's testimony was made. It is apparent that it was not because he was an incompetent witness; for his testimony had previously been read without objection. It must have been that the testimony itself was irrelevant. The question before the court was, whether the witness assented to the conveyance aforesaid; and when he had before testified that he meant to avail himself of the deed, provided that he could not find other property which suited him better, it seemed to imply, that if he did find…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Jacobs v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Camp v. CampSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1824
- Johnson v. BlackmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
- Orvis v. NewellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1845
- Watson v. WatsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1839
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.