Legal Opinion

Lee v. Jilson

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 15, 1831PublishedCited by 27 opinions

This was an action on a promissory negotiable note, brought by the payee against the makers. The defendants pleaded sundry matters in bar. In one of the pleas it was averred, That after the service of the plaintiff’s writ, and before the return day, he, the plaintiff, by. his indorsement of said note, transferred, assigned and delivered it to Steelman & Gordon, of Hartford, who thereby became, and have ever since continued to be, the lawful owners thereof.

Read the full summary

This was an action on a promissory negotiable note, brought by the payee against the makers. The defendants pleaded sundry matters in bar. In one of the pleas it was averred, That after the service of the plaintiff’s writ, and before the return day, he, the plaintiff, by. his indorsement of said note, transferred, assigned and delivered it to Steelman & Gordon, of Hartford, who thereby became, and have ever since continued to be, the lawful owners thereof. These averments were traversed, by the plaintiff; on which issue was joined to the court. The court found this issue for the defendants.…

1Opinion of the CourtDaggett, J.

There were several issues joined to the court. One of those issues was, that the plaintiff had assigned, transferred and indorsed the note in question, after the institution of the suit, and before the return of the writ, to Stedman &].Gor*104don of Hartford. This issue was found in favour of the defendants. The other issues were found in favour of the plaintiff. Of these issues it becomes unnecessary Us sperm, ns the judge at the circuit reserved, for the consideration of this Court, only the question, whether that fact being so, the plaintiff could recover. If he could not, then judgment was to…

2Cited by27 opinions

  1. Estate of DolbeerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. State v. PikeSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870
  3. Beaubien v. CicotteMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
  4. State v. AvcollieSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
  5. Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API