Abel v. Godfry

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Abel v. Godfry

1 Root 494

DecidedJanuary 15, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 494 (Abel v. Godfry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abel v. Godfry, 1 Root 494 (Colo. 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The motion in arrest is insufficient and the plaintiff must have judgment.

The statute is to have a reasonable construction, and although made upon principles of humanity of poor imprisoned debtors, yet it is not to be so construed as to- become a trap to defraud the creditor. The money left was sufficient to pay for his breakfast, and he could not be in want of support until that was digested. See Sheriff Fitch v. Cook, New Haven, August Term, 1791.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court.

The motion in arrest is insufficient and the plaintiff must have judgment.

The statute is to have a reasonable construction, and although made upon principles of humanity of poor imprisoned debtors, yet it is not to be so construed as to- become a trap to defraud the creditor. The money left was sufficient to pay for his breakfast, and he could not be in want of support until that was digested. See Sheriff Fitch v. Cook, New Haven, August Term, 1791.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abel-v-godfry-conn-1793.