Fairfield County Turnpike Co. v. Thorp
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit for certain instalments on a subscription by the defendant to the capital stock of the company. The cause was tried at Fairfield, April term 1839, before Williams, Ch. J. The plaintiffs claimed to have proved all the facts stated in their declaration, tending to shew their right to sue and the obligation of the defendant.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit for certain instalments on a subscription by the defendant to the capital stock of the company. The cause was tried at Fairfield, April term 1839, before Williams, Ch. J. The plaintiffs claimed to have proved all the facts stated in their declaration, tending to shew their right to sue and the obligation of the defendant. The writing subscribed by the defendant and the other stockholders, was as follows :— “ Whereas the legislature of the state of Connecticut, at its session held at Neic-Haven, on the first Wednesday of May, 1834, on the application of Walter…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Ch. J.
The evidence offered by the defendant was objected to and ruled out, upon two grounds; first, on account of the source from whence it was derived; and secondly, on account of the nature of the evidence itself.
That Hickok was a director of the company is of no importance, unless to prove him an agent, — a fact not denied. The testimony offered, however, was not to shew what he did as agent, except by his admissions or confessions of what he had /done. The rule is well settled, that the confessions of an agent are not evidence against his principal, although his declarations…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bank of United States v. DunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Bank of the Metropolis v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1834
- Coit v. TracySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1830
- McCall v. Byram Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1827
- United States v. HerbertU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1836
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. FarrCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. PiersonNew York Supreme Court · 1927
- South Bay Meadow Dam Co. v. GraySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1849
- Davis Improved Wrought Iron Wagon Wheel Co. v. Davis Wrought Iron Wagon Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York · 1884
- Franklin Bank v. StewardSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1853
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.