Horton v. Frink
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.
Opinion
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.
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
5 Day 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-frink-conn-1813.