Huntington v. Winchell

8 Conn. 45
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 15, 1830·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

Bissell, J.

The question in this case was decided in the court below in conformity to what was understood to have been a previous decision on the circuit. I am satisfied, that the evidence ought to have been admitted. The excess was very trifling ; and the case seems peculiarly to require the application of the maxim—“De minibus non curat lex.” And even had the excess been at all important in point of amount, the entire levy ought not, on that account, to have been avoided ; as the debtor, if aggrieved, in such case, might obtain redress, by application to a court of chancery.

I would advise a new trial.

Peters and Daggett, Js. were of the same opinion.

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

Huntington v. Winchell, 8 Conn. 45 (Colo. 1830).

8 Conn. 45 (Huntington v. Winchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Foreign Car Center, Inc. v. Essex Process Service, Inc.
821 N.E.2d 483 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2005)
Sibley v. Krauskopf
171 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1934)
Burt v. Hasselman
38 N.E. 598 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1894)
Whelan v. Reilly
3 W. Va. 597 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1869)
Avery v. Bowman
40 N.H. 453 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1860)
Glidden v. Chase
35 Me. 90 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1852)
Dwinel v. Soper
32 Me. 119 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1850)
Spencer v. Champion
9 Conn. 544 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1833)