Atwater's administrator v. Townsend
This text of 4 Conn. 47 (Atwater's administrator v. Townsend) 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.
Opinion
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.
New trial not to be granted.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 Conn. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atwaters-administrator-v-townsend-conn-1821.