Fitch v. Broomfield
Supreme Court of Connecticut
PetitioN in chancery, showing that in November 1773, he was indebted to said Broomfield by note £100 which was upon interest; that on the 24th of July A. D. 1777 he paid to Joseph Trumbull, Esq. who was then attorney to said Henry Broomfield and who had said note to collect £120, and took his receipt therefor, as follows; Received July 24th 1777 of Eleazer Eitch £120 lawful money, which I promise to pay to Henry Broomfield on account of said Pitch’s note to him for £100…
Read the full summary
PetitioN in chancery, showing that in November 1773, he was indebted to said Broomfield by note £100 which was upon interest; that on the 24th of July A. D. 1777 he paid to Joseph Trumbull, Esq. who was then attorney to said Henry Broomfield and who had said note to collect £120, and took his receipt therefor, as follows; Received July 24th 1777 of Eleazer Eitch £120 lawful money, which I promise to pay to Henry Broomfield on account of said Pitch’s note to him for £100 given in A. D. 1773. Joseph Trumbull. That in A. I). 1789 the petitioner removed to St. Johns in Canada, said Trumbull being…
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment — Plea sufficient. If the receipt is to he considered as Broomfield’s, it will apply at law and whether it is so to be considered or not, is determinable at law, if it is not to be considered as Broomfield’s receipt at law, then it cannot he applied to said note in chancery any more than at law.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Farmer's Bank v. WhitehillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823