Kipple v. Coleman

1 Root 407
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedMarch 15, 1792
StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 407 (Kipple v. Coleman) 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
Kipple v. Coleman, 1 Root 407 (Colo. 1792).

Opinion

Judgment affirmed. The indorsement of service by the constable is in Lebanon, etc. where said Calkins might be and the presumption is that he was at the time of service: the plea [408]*408says the service on Calkins was in Bozrah, hut doth not traverse or deny its being made in Lebanon. 2d. If there is a defect in the service, as to Calkins, he only can take advantage of it; the plea is insufficient therefore as applied to both.

In the case of Hallam and Adams against Momford, New London Superior Court, September 1773, it was determined upon a. writ of error, that in an action brought by Mumford against Hallam and Adams upon a joint and several note, said Hallam being a minor, Adams could not avail himself of Hallam’s minority, by pleading it in abatement or otherwise; as also is the case of a misnomer, the party only who is misnamed can take advantage of it.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 Root 407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kipple-v-coleman-conn-1792.