Gold v. Ives
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, on a promissory note of the defendant, for the sum of $1,910.69, dated January 1, 1855. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of the special matters below s^ed. Tlie issue was closed to the jury.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a promissory note of the defendant, for the sum of $1,910.69, dated January 1, 1855. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of the special matters below s^ed. Tlie issue was closed to the jury. On t1 ¿ trial, after the plaintiff had proved the execution of the note bv the defendant, the defendant introduced in evidence a contract of the plaintiff with him, for the conveyance to him, for the sum of $6,000 to be paid to the plaintiff, of the fourth part of a patent held by the plaintiff for an invention for warming houses by steam, and which the defendant admitted…
1Opinion of the CourtSanford, J.
We think the defendant’s motion in it to be denied.
In regard to his right to set-off his damages, occasioned by the plaintiff’s violation of his part of the original contract, against the note, the judge’s charge seems to have been in substantial conformity to the defendant’s claim, so that he has no reason to complain of it.
But it is said that nominal damages, at least, are due and recoverable for every breach of contract, and hence that the instructions given to the jury, that their verdict should be for the full amount of the note, if they found the evidence so un.certain and indefinite hi…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Fahey v. ClarkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Sovereign Camp v. ThiebaudSupreme Court of Kansas · 1902
- Smith v. WhittleseySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Avery v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
- Town of Stratford v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.