Horton v. Frink

5 Day 530
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedNovember 15, 1813
StatusPublished

This text of 5 Day 530 (Horton v. Frink) 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
Horton v. Frink, 5 Day 530 (Colo. 1813).

Opinion

Swift, J.

It appears, that Raymond, the maker of the note endorsed by the defendant, had sufficient property within the reach of legal process, to pay the note when it became due : Of course, the warranty of the ability of the maker, contained in the endorsement, was satisfied. This property was attached, and might have been held to respond the judgment, had it not been for some mistake in the return of the writ by the officer, or some accident in the clerk’s office, in not receiving it, and entering it in the docket. This ⅛ an event against which the endorser did not warrant: Of course, he is not responsible for it.

A new trial, therefore, ought not to be granted.

The other Judges, severally, concurred.

Mew trial not to be granted.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Day 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-frink-conn-1813.