Fitch v. Hall

1 Kirby 18
CourtConnecticut Superior Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1786
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Kirby 18 (Fitch v. Hall) 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
Fitch v. Hall, 1 Kirby 18 (Colo. Ct. App. 1786).

Opinions

By the Court.

The plea in bar is insufficient, not on the .ground of duplicity; for though two matters are plead, they are not sufficient matters: Averments immaterial require no traverse, and are mere surplusage. But the fault is in pleading a surrender of the principal in court as a matter in pais, and not a matter of record. Croke Ja. 402; 3 Buls. 192, Austin v. Monk; Hobart, 210; 1 Levinz, 211; Raymond, 50; Vin. A. P. B. A. 492, pl. 8; Poph. 185, 186; Keb. 761, 816. Every transaction in a court of record, pertaining to a process, of which the surrender of the principal in discharge of bail is one, regularly becomes a matter of [19]*19record, and must be shown by record only, and plead accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Kirby 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitch-v-hall-connsuperct-1786.