Dunham v. Baker
Supreme Court of Connecticut
In the Court below, T HE declaration stated, That the defendant, on the 5tii of June, 1800, promised, and agreed with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff with the defendant, that the plaintiff should have the defendant’s schooner, for a fishing voyage on the Northern and Eastern coasts of America ; and that the schooner should call at Hiannas harbour, on Cape-Cod, between the 1st and 10th of July, for the purpose of taking on board the plaintiff, him to transport to Norwich,…
Read the full summary
In the Court below, T HE declaration stated, That the defendant, on the 5tii of June, 1800, promised, and agreed with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff with the defendant, that the plaintiff should have the defendant’s schooner, for a fishing voyage on the Northern and Eastern coasts of America ; and that the schooner should call at Hiannas harbour, on Cape-Cod, between the 1st and 10th of July, for the purpose of taking on board the plaintiff, him to transport to Norwich, previous to the 12th of July: That the plaintiff and defendant agreed, that the plaintiff should procure two fishermen, at…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The only question arising on this record respects the promise which the plaintiff, in his declaration, alleges, that the defendant made to call with his vessel at Hiannas harbour for the plaintiff, and him to transport to Norwich. It is contended by the defendant, that it was not competent for the plaintiff to prove any other, or different promise than is expressed in the defendant’s written contract recited in tire declaration ; and this promise is not there expressed. Of that opinion is the Court. The action is brought on a written contract, which is set forth at large ; and…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Streator v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1824
- Wynn, Shannon & Co. v. CoxSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848