Peck v. Goodwin

Connecticut Superior Court

Peck v. Goodwin

1 Kirby 64

DecidedAugust 15, 1786

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Kirby 64 (Peck v. Goodwin) 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

Peck v. Goodwin, 1 Kirby 64 (Colo. Ct. App. 1786).

Pincite

Opinion

The case was, in 1784, an action of trespass was pending between the same parties for cutting on the lands now in question; both claiming. The controversy was submitted to arbitration. Quitclaim deeds from each to the other were executed, acknowledged, and delivered into the hands of the arbitrators, to be by them disposed of as they should award the title. The arbitrators, upon hearing, awarded the title to be in Goodwin, the defendant, and delivered to him the deeds. There was some contention at the trial, whether Peck did not forbid the delivery of the deed after the arbitrators had published their award: But the court said it was immaterial, for the publishing the award was the condition of the delivery; that being performed, the deed became absolute. And although the fee of lands cannot be transferred by award of arbitrators, yet it may well be done by deed, as in this case.

The jury found a verdict for the defendant, which was accepted by the whole court.

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

The case was, in 1784, an action of trespass was pending between the same parties for cutting on the lands now in question; both claiming. The controversy was submitted to arbitration. Quitclaim deeds from each to the other were executed, acknowledged, and delivered into the hands of the arbitrators, to be by them disposed of as they should award the title. The arbitrators, upon hearing, awarded the title to be in Goodwin, the defendant, and delivered to him the deeds. There was some contention at the trial, whether Peck did not forbid the delivery of the deed after the arbitrators had published their award: But the court said it was immaterial, for the publishing the award was the condition of the delivery; that being performed, the deed became absolute. And although the fee of lands cannot be transferred by award of arbitrators, yet it may well be done by deed, as in this case.

The jury found a verdict for the defendant, which was accepted by the whole court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Kirby 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peck-v-goodwin-connsuperct-1786.