Parsons v. Ely
Supreme Court of Connecticut
in error. THIS was an action on the case against Enoch Parsons, Esq. Sheriff of Middlesex county, for an escape. in the writ the plaintiffs described themselves thus : “ David Ely and Samuel Parsons, both of the city and state of JVew-York, merchants in company under the firm of Ely ⅜* Parsons.”
Read the full summary
in error. THIS was an action on the case against Enoch Parsons, Esq. Sheriff of Middlesex county, for an escape. in the writ the plaintiffs described themselves thus : “ David Ely and Samuel Parsons, both of the city and state of JVew-York, merchants in company under the firm of Ely ⅜* Parsons.” The defendant pleaded in abatement, first, that the plaintiffs were neither of them inhabitants of this state, and that they did not, when this writ was granted, give any security to prosecute their said action to effect, and answer all damages in case they should fail to make their plea good :…
1Opinion of the Court
Swept, Oh. J.
Every plea in abatement must be complete in itself, and must contain all the averments essential to shew, that the writ ought to abate# In all cases of attachment, or where the plaintiff lives out of the state, so that bonds are required by law, a material alteration, after the writ has been signed and issued, and while the bond continues necessary, will destroy the writ; for it will cease to be the writ on which the bond was taken ; and to permit such an alteration might subject the person giving the bond to responsibilities that he did not contemplate. An alteration in the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Jencks v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- Capwell v. SipeSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1891
- Starr v. LyonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Beach v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1833
- New-Haven Bank v. MilesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.