Wright v. Post
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by J. Wright, ,/. Kelsey, and A. Kelsey, to recover of the defendant his proportion of certain sums of money disbursed by them.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought by J. Wright, ,/. Kelsey, and A. Kelsey, to recover of the defendant his proportion of certain sums of money disbursed by them. The declaration stated, That at a place called Menunketesuck beach in Sayhrook, the inhabitants of that town, as well as of several other towns in the state, have until two years past, immemorially used and occupied the fishery there as a common or free fishery; that in the year 1813, Job Wright and Benjamin Wright, claiming an exclusive right of fishery there, threatened to bring suits at law against those, who had occupied,…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
In this case, after the plaintiffs had proved the contract, as alleged in the declaration, Starkey, the officer, who had the execution issued on the judgment obtained by Job and Benjamin Wright against them, was offered to testify, that one of the plaintiffs paid a third of it, and the other two the residue. The defendant objected to the admission of the testimony, that the claim of the plaintiffs, in their action for expenses and damages was joint, but that the evidence *145offered proved the expenditures to be several. It was adjudged to be inadmissible, and was rejected. This…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Gould v. GouldCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
- 5 Mining Co. v. BruceSupreme Court of Colorado · 1878
- Jacobs v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1871
- Gilleran v. Springfield L. I. Cemetery SocietyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Lindell v. BrantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.