Bacon v. Sanford

Connecticut Superior Court

Bacon v. Sanford

1 Root 164

DecidedJanuary 15, 1790

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 164 (Bacon v. Sanford) 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.

Bluebook

Bacon v. Sanford, 1 Root 164 (Colo. Ct. App. 1790).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The declaration is not double; it is laid upon the fraud, and its being mentioned in the declaration, that the orders had been refused payment, was immaterial, was not to the point of the action, but to the damages only.

Although the value of public securities and state orders is a matter of public notoriety, equally known to the buyer as the [165]*165seller; yet this is not tbe case with orders drawn by the selectmen of a town, or by individuals: their value is presumed to be in the knowledge of the seller and not of the buyer.

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

By the Court.

The declaration is not double; it is laid upon the fraud, and its being mentioned in the declaration, that the orders had been refused payment, was immaterial, was not to the point of the action, but to the damages only.

Although the value of public securities and state orders is a matter of public notoriety, equally known to the buyer as the [165]*165seller; yet this is not tbe case with orders drawn by the selectmen of a town, or by individuals: their value is presumed to be in the knowledge of the seller and not of the buyer.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-v-sanford-connsuperct-1790.