Smith v. Huntington
1 Root 226
This text of 1 Root 226 (Smith v. Huntington) 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
Smith v. Huntington, 1 Root 226 (Colo. 1790).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
1 Root 226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-huntington-conn-1790.