Palmer v. Seymour

Connecticut Superior Court

Palmer v. Seymour

1 Kirby 139

DecidedSeptember 15, 1786

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Kirby 139 (Palmer v. Seymour) 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

Palmer v. Seymour, 1 Kirby 139 (Colo. Ct. App. 1786).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The issue, as found by the verdict, does not determine the merits of the cause. The jury find, that Field, who gave bonds in the case, was not possessed of sufficient estate in Hartford; but if he was possessed of sufficient estate in any other place, it would have been sufficient to justify the defendant in taking his bonds; but, from the verdict, it does not appear whether he had estate elsewhere or not; — therefore, a repleader is ordered.

Note.— Judge Ellsworth excused himself from judging in this case, he having been of counsel in it before his appointment of judge.

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

By the Court.

The issue, as found by the verdict, does not determine the merits of the cause. The jury find, that Field, who gave bonds in the case, was not possessed of sufficient estate in Hartford; but if he was possessed of sufficient estate in any other place, it would have been sufficient to justify the defendant in taking his bonds; but, from the verdict, it does not appear whether he had estate elsewhere or not; — therefore, a repleader is ordered.

Note.— Judge Ellsworth excused himself from judging in this case, he having been of counsel in it before his appointment of judge.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Kirby 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-seymour-connsuperct-1786.