Mott v. Meach

Connecticut Superior Court

Mott v. Meach

1 Root 186

DecidedMarch 15, 1790

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 186 (Mott v. Meach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mott v. Meach, 1 Root 186 (Colo. Ct. App. 1790).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment — Motion insufficient. The promise is laid to have been made within three years before the bringing of the [187]*187action: besides tlie jury have found the promise: and it is no reason for arresting a verdict, that the jury have found it without sufficient evidence in the opinion of the court, for they are judges of the evidence. Same point adjudged at Hew Haven this circuit, in the case of Smith v. Bradly; Kirby’s Rep. 61, Woodruff v. Whittlesey.

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

Judgment — Motion insufficient. The promise is laid to have been made within three years before the bringing of the [187]*187action: besides tlie jury have found the promise: and it is no reason for arresting a verdict, that the jury have found it without sufficient evidence in the opinion of the court, for they are judges of the evidence. Same point adjudged at Hew Haven this circuit, in the case of Smith v. Bradly; Kirby’s Rep. 61, Woodruff v. Whittlesey.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mott-v-meach-connsuperct-1790.