Wilcox v. Green
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Trespass de bonis asportatis. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of certain live stock and farm produce, which the defendants had attached as the property of one John Brown, whom they claimed to be the owner thereof, and on the trial it became an important question whether Brown, who had been the plaintiff’s farm tenant and had had an interest in the stock and produce of the farm, had at the time of the attachment relinquished his interest to the plaintiff and abandoned…
Read the full summary
Trespass de bonis asportatis. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of certain live stock and farm produce, which the defendants had attached as the property of one John Brown, whom they claimed to be the owner thereof, and on the trial it became an important question whether Brown, who had been the plaintiff’s farm tenant and had had an interest in the stock and produce of the farm, had at the time of the attachment relinquished his interest to the plaintiff and abandoned the occupancy of the farm, (though still living in the dwelling-house upon the farm,) the plaintiff claiming and the…
1Opinion of the CourtStorks, C. J.
It is a well settled rule of this court, first declared in 1826, and re-established in 1847, and to which we have tenaciously adhered, that, on a motion for a new trial, no questions shall be allowed to be raised or discussed which were not made or which were waived on the trial in the court below. As remarked in Torry v. Holmes, (10 Conn., 499,) this rule has been found essential to the preservation of the rights of parties and to the due administration of justice, and we are still disposed-to adhere rigidly to it. Under this rule the defendant in this case can not be allowed to avail…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Torry v. HolmesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835
- Flint v. ClarkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1839
- Nichols v. AlsopSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834