Bostwick v. Leach

3 Day 476
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJune 15, 1809
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 3 Day 476 (Bostwick v. Leach) 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
Bostwick v. Leach, 3 Day 476 (Colo. 1809).

Opinion

By the Court.

The contract was.not embraced by the statute of frauds and perjuries. When there is a sale of property, which would pass by a deed of land, as such, without any other description, if it can be separated from the freehold, and by the contract is to be separated, sue it contract is not within the statute. Such are the contracts for the purchase of gravel, stones, limbi r trees, and the hoards and brick of houses to be puiled down and carried away.

The agreement not to use his mill, after a certain day, is not within the statute of frauds and perjuries; for this statute contemplates only a transfer of lands, or some interest in them. In this case, there was %o transfer of any right, but only an agreement not to exercise a right. He parts with no interest to any person. There Is no conveyance of the stream, or indeed of any interest whatever. Thus, it differs nothing in principle from the case where a man has carried on a trade in his house, or shop, and agrees, for a valuable consideraron, not to carry On his business at that particular stand : and yet such contract has never been held to be within the statute.

New trial net to be granted.

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

Related

Turner v. Brocato
111 A.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1973)
Groves v. Segars
261 So. 2d 389 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1972)
Rodgers Et Ux v. Reimann Et Ux
361 P.2d 101 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1961)
Hartlin v. Cody
134 A.2d 245 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1957)
McCrae v. Bradley Oil Co.
84 P.2d 866 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1938)
Wetkopsky v. New Haven Gas Light Co.
90 A. 30 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1914)
Maguire v. Kiesel
85 A. 689 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1913)
Jones v. Patrick
140 F. 403 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1905)
Cannon v. Matthews
69 L.R.A. 827 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
Leonard v. Medford
37 L.R.A. 449 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1897)
Hall v. Solomon
23 A. 876 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1892)
Long v. White
42 Ohio St. (N.S.) 59 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1884)
Thompson v. Tilton
34 N.J. Eq. 306 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1881)
Harris v. Powers
57 Ala. 139 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1876)
Owens v. Lewis
46 Ind. 488 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Strong v. Doyle
110 Mass. 92 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1872)
Shaw v. Carbrey
95 Mass. 462 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1866)
Marshall v. Ferguson
23 Cal. 65 (California Supreme Court, 1863)
Foster v. Mabe
4 Ala. 402 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1842)
Swift v. Thompson
9 Conn. 71 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1831)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Day 476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bostwick-v-leach-conn-1809.