Lloyd v. Holly
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trover, for 2000 hat bodies, by writ dated November 4th, 1828. The cause was tried at Fairfield, December term, 1830, before Hosmer, Ch. J. On the 3rd of April, 1828, William Harrington was the general owner of 1600 of the hat bodies mentioned in the plaintiffs’ declaration; and he, at the same time, owed the plaintiffs a debt of 293 dollars, 18 cents, being the balance of their mutual book accounts.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trover, for 2000 hat bodies, by writ dated November 4th, 1828. The cause was tried at Fairfield, December term, 1830, before Hosmer, Ch. J. On the 3rd of April, 1828, William Harrington was the general owner of 1600 of the hat bodies mentioned in the plaintiffs’ declaration; and he, at the same time, owed the plaintiffs a debt of 293 dollars, 18 cents, being the balance of their mutual book accounts. The plaintiffs claimed title to the hat bodies in question under an assignment from Harrington, made on the 3d of April 1828, in the following terms: “For value received, I…
1Opinion of the CourtDaggett, J.
There appeal's to have been much discussion, at the circuit, of points and principles, which, in the light in which I view the case, are not important to a right decision of it. It was there decided, that the defendant had lost his lien in this property, by his attempted attachment of it, thereby voluntarily resorting to a new remedy. Be that point as it may, the plaintiffs are bound, by the clear principles of law, to prove property in themselves, or they cannot recover. This, in my opinion, they have not done.
The proof consists entirely of a bill of sale or assignment of it, dated the 3rd…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wheeler v. WalkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
3Cited by2 opinions
- Spring v. CoffinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Seymour v. HarveySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836