Bacon v. Fitch
This text of 1 Kirby 373 (Bacon v. Fitch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears by tbe plea — Tbat tbe defendant received tbe execution under certain restrictions, to conduct in tbe most advantageous manner for tbe plaintiff, and with as little expense to him as possible; and tbat be bad no opportunity to levy on tbe person or estate of tbe debtor, till after tbe return day was past. If be. bad returned tbe execution, with a non est inventus indorsed, it would have occasioned useless expense to tbe plaintiff, and would have been contrary to bis instructions; — therefore, we think tbat a sufficient excuse for not doing it.— Tbe other matters alleged in tbe plea, are expressive of what was tbe further understanding of tbe parties, respecting tbe [375]*375terms on wbicb tbe defendant received and beld tbe execution; and that be conducted with it fairly, reasonably, and agreeably to tbe orders of tbe plaintiff; and that tbe loss, wbicb happened by tbe depreciation of tbe continental bills of credit, was occasioned by tbe plaintiff’s neglect to receive them.
So judgment was for tbe defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Kirby 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-v-fitch-connsuperct-1788.