Washband v. Washband
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action by Seth Washband the payee against Sterling S. Washband, the maker of a promissory note. The declaration, embraced the common counts, and a count upon said note, which was as follows: “ On the 2d day of October, A. D. 1843, the plaintiff owned and possessed a certain plaster mill, situated in the town of Derby, in New Haven county, and said mill, consisting of the grinding stones and machinery, shafting, belts and fixtures, and everything in complete…
Read the full summary
This was an action by Seth Washband the payee against Sterling S. Washband, the maker of a promissory note. The declaration, embraced the common counts, and a count upon said note, which was as follows: “ On the 2d day of October, A. D. 1843, the plaintiff owned and possessed a certain plaster mill, situated in the town of Derby, in New Haven county, and said mill, consisting of the grinding stones and machinery, shafting, belts and fixtures, and everything in complete running order, and that he then and there sold to the defendant said mill, complete in all its parts, at the special instance…
1Opinion of the CourtStorrs, J.
1. There is no ground for the claim that there was a want, or failure of consideration, in regard to the note on which this suit was brought. Although the verbal agreement between the plaintiff and his father might have conferred no right on the former, and could not be enforced by him while it remained executory, it is quite clear that he, having built the plaster mill at his own expense in pursuance of that agreement, had, in equity, a perfect title to it, and a right to the use of the land on which it stood, for its enjoyment, which a court of chancery would protect against any claim on…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Russell v. City of New HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1883
- Huguley v. LanierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Carr v. Doan Savings & Loan Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1925