Eno v. Frisbie
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory not;-, originally brought to the County Court, by Eno against Vris-hie. The justice who issued the writ, certified the payment of a duty of seventeen cents only ; although, the duty of thirty-four cents was in fact paid, at the time when the writ was issued.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. THIS was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory not;-, originally brought to the County Court, by Eno against Vris-hie. The justice who issued the writ, certified the payment of a duty of seventeen cents only ; although, the duty of thirty-four cents was in fact paid, at the time when the writ was issued. The writ was directed toNalkanht Austin, nu indifferent person, to serve and return ; anti the certificate of the justice, on the back of the writ, made ai (he time when it was issued and signed, was in these words, vis, “ Litchfield county, Torrington, December 27th, 1809,…
1Opinion of the Court
Mitciielij, Ch. J.
The first question presented on the record is, did the County Court decide correctly, in permitting the justice, who signed the writ, to amend his certificate of the payment of the duty required by law ?
The statute entitled “ an act laying a duty in certain cases" declares, that “ no writ served after the first day of July, 1784, shall be valid or authentic in law, unless the authority signing the same, shall certify thereon, that the duty required by law, is paid.”(a) At the time when this writ was served, no such certificate was maué thereon : therefore, at that time, the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Morse v. RankinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1883
- Case v. HumphreySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1826
- Town of Hamden v. CollinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
- Merriam v. LangdonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
- "Harris Millinery Supply" v. Harris GansConnecticut Superior Court · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.