Smith v. Huntington
1 Root 226
Opinion
Action for a fraud in the purchase of a debt which íteuben Huntington owed him, for much less than the just value. "Joshua Coit, Esq. who was attorney for the plaintiff, and had discretionary powers, and transacted the business for the plaintiff, was admitted a witness;'upon objection made, a deposition drawn up by one Ambrose Spencer, agent for the plaintiff, was ruled out by the court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. Huntington, 1 Root 226 (Colo. 1790).
1 Root 226 (Smith v. Huntington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Dodd v. Northrop
37 Conn. 216 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1870)
Glanton v. Griggs
5 Ga. 424 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1848)
Jones v. Hake
2 Johns. Cas. 60 (New York Supreme Court, 1800)