Hitchcock v. Page

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Hitchcock v. Page

1 Root 293

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedAugust 15, 1791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 Root 293 (Hitchcock v. Page) 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

Hitchcock v. Page, 1 Root 293 (Colo. 1791).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment — Manifest error. As to the first exception in error, the judgment does answer the issue and more which is surplusage. As to the second exception, the declaration is clearly bad, for want of consideration and for want of certainty — and the want of a consideration in an action upon a parol promise, is not aided by the finding of the justice, or by verdict of a jury; for as it is not alleged, it need not be proved on the trial.

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

Judgment — Manifest error. As to the first exception in error, the judgment does answer the issue and more which is surplusage. As to the second exception, the declaration is clearly bad, for want of consideration and for want of certainty — and the want of a consideration in an action upon a parol promise, is not aided by the finding of the justice, or by verdict of a jury; for as it is not alleged, it need not be proved on the trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hitchcock-v-page-conn-1791.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack