Crocker v. Fox

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Crocker v. Fox

1 Root 323

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedSeptember 15, 1791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Root 323 (Crocker v. Fox) 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

Crocker v. Fox, 1 Root 323 (Colo. 1791).

Pincite

Opinion

Exception — That this action was given in England by the Statute of Marl bridge, 52 Hen. 3d, which does not extend here. To which it was answered, that true said statute does not extend here; yet it is reasonable there should be a remedy in such cases, for the reversioner to recover his damages, and that reason was universal and ought to govern here. Judgment — Declaration sufficient. See Rose v. Hays, action of waste against tenant by the curtesy. New Haven, January Term, A. D. 1791.

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

Exception — That this action was given in England by the Statute of Marl bridge, 52 Hen. 3d, which does not extend here. To which it was answered, that true said statute does not extend here; yet it is reasonable there should be a remedy in such cases, for the reversioner to recover his damages, and that reason was universal and ought to govern here. Judgment — Declaration sufficient. See Rose v. Hays, action of waste against tenant by the curtesy. New Haven, January Term, A. D. 1791.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crocker-v-fox-conn-1791.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack