Austin v. Fitch

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Austin v. Fitch

1 Root 288

DecidedAugust 15, 1791

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 288 (Austin v. Fitch) 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

Austin v. Fitch, 1 Root 288 (Colo. 1791).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment was arrested upon the second reason in arrest, for it is agreed in the pleadings ■ — - That the letter was made and directed at Durham; and the only question between the parties was, whether it was made by Spelman only, or by both Spelman and Turner: It is clear that the City Court had not [290]*290jurisdiction of said action; and tbe judgment was coram non judice, of which the gaoler hath right to avail himself. Eor if Spelman was not legally imprisoned, the gaoler is not liable for his escape. Wooster et al. v. Parsons, Kirby’s Rep. 26. See Cornwell v. Hosmer, and Fitch v. Clark, ante.

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

Judgment was arrested upon the second reason in arrest, for it is agreed in the pleadings ■ — - That the letter was made and directed at Durham; and the only question between the parties was, whether it was made by Spelman only, or by both Spelman and Turner: It is clear that the City Court had not [290]*290jurisdiction of said action; and tbe judgment was coram non judice, of which the gaoler hath right to avail himself. Eor if Spelman was not legally imprisoned, the gaoler is not liable for his escape. Wooster et al. v. Parsons, Kirby’s Rep. 26. See Cornwell v. Hosmer, and Fitch v. Clark, ante.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-fitch-conn-1791.