Atwater's administrator v. Townsend

4 Conn. 47
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided July 15, 1821·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Hosmer, Ch. J.

In Medbury v. Hopkins, 3 Conn. Rep. 472. it was determined, by this Court, that although in the construction of a contract, reference must be had to the place where it was made; yet with regard to the remedy upon it, that must be governed by the laws of the state where it is sought. On [49]*49this principle, the statute of limitations of the state of New-York was adjudged to be of no avail; and in the point of determination, that case was precisely like the one before the court. This question has often been decided, and must be considered as at rest. Pearsall & al. v. Dwight, 2 Mass. Rep. 84. Smith v. Spinolla, 2 Johns. Rep. 198. Sicard v. Whale, 11 Johns. Rep. 194.

The other point raised in the case was determined in Woodbridge v. Wright and Canfield, 3 Conn. Rep. 523.; and execution must issue in common form.

The other Judges were of the same opinion, except Brainard, J., who being absent, gave no opinion.

New trial not to be granted.

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

Atwater's administrator v. Townsend, 4 Conn. 47 (Colo. 1821).

4 Conn. 47 (Atwater's administrator v. Townsend) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Illustrated Postal Card & Novelty Co. v. Holt
81 A. 1061 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1912)
Urton v. Hunter, Harris & Co.
2 W. Va. 83 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1867)
Tagart v. Indiana
15 Mo. 209 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1851)
Wood v. Malin
10 N.J.L. 208 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1828)