White v. Brown
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IX ERROR. This was an action on a promissory note, alleged to have been made by 8. Selleck, in his life-time, dated the 30th day of August, 1831, in and by which he promised to pay the plaintiff, on demand, the sum of 34 dollars ; which note had been lost or destroyed, by time and accident, and. could not, therefore, be produced in court. The declaration also contained a count for money had and received, and the other common counts.
Read the full summary
IX ERROR. This was an action on a promissory note, alleged to have been made by 8. Selleck, in his life-time, dated the 30th day of August, 1831, in and by which he promised to pay the plaintiff, on demand, the sum of 34 dollars ; which note had been lost or destroyed, by time and accident, and. could not, therefore, be produced in court. The declaration also contained a count for money had and received, and the other common counts. To the first count, the defendant pleaded,-1st, that said S. Selleck never did assume and promise ; on which, issue was joined, 2ndly, that the court of probate…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
We think the county court erred, in finding there was sufficient evidence of the loss of the note mentioned in the declaration, and in permitting secondary evidence of its existence and contents to be given. The deceased was told, that his daughter said, she had lost her note against him, and was requested to give her another ; this he refused to do, and remarked, that if he should, and the old note should come to light, he should be accountable for both : and on another occasion, he said, that the plaintiff had told him, she had lost her note, and wanted him to give her another ; and that he…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mathews v. SheehanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
- Mead's Appeal from ProbateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1878