Webb v. Fitch
Connecticut Superior Court
PetitioN in chancery; showing, that he gave his note to said Eleazer for £28; that he made payment of nearly the whole of said note to said Cary, and charged it on hook; that said Cary’s estate was represented insolvent, and commissioners appointed; that he omitted to exhibit his book to tbe commissioners, by being told by one of the administrators that the payments should he allowed on the note; that said commission is expired, and the administrators have recovered judgment…
Read the full summary
PetitioN in chancery; showing, that he gave his note to said Eleazer for £28; that he made payment of nearly the whole of said note to said Cary, and charged it on hook; that said Cary’s estate was represented insolvent, and commissioners appointed; that he omitted to exhibit his book to tbe commissioners, by being told by one of the administrators that the payments should he allowed on the note; that said commission is expired, and the administrators have recovered judgment before this court for the whole sum of said note; praying that all parties may be admitted to testify, and that he may…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The petitioner cannot be admitted to testify ; and it not being shown tbat be is deprived of his due, by any fraud in said administrators, he is equally barred of his remedy in equity as at law; this court cannot resume and ad*178just claims which, ought to have been exhibited to, and adjusted by commissioners.
Petitioner withdrew his petition, and replied to- the Court of Probate, and had the commission of said commissioners renewed, and exhibited said debt to them, which they allowed, amounting to £10 19s. 2d. lawful money; and then the petitioner applied to this court in September,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lockwood v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1844