State v. Woodruff
2 Day 504
Opinion
unanimously, the judgment was reversed, on the ground, that the qualification required by statute is the having a freehold estate actually rated in the common list at nine dollars ;■ and that the having such estate rateable in the list at that sum is not sufficient.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Woodruff, 2 Day 504 (Colo. 1807).
2 Day 504 (State v. Woodruff) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Johns
439 A.2d 1049 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1981)
Ward v. State
427 A.2d 1008 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1981)
State v. Moeller
420 A.2d 1153 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
State v. Langley
244 A.2d 366 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1968)
State v. Stankevicius
222 A.2d 356 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1966)
State v. Masse
1 Conn. Cir. Ct. 381 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1962)
State v. Masse
186 A.2d 553 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1962)
Hall v. City of Madison
107 N.W. 31 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1906)
Cunningham, Admx. v. Fair Haven Westville R. Co.
43 A. 1047 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1899)
State v. Lee
27 L.R.A. 498 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1894)
Kohlheimer v. State
2 Morr. St. Cas. 1388 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1872)
State v. Benham
7 Conn. 414 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1829)
Commonwealth v. Purchase
19 Mass. 521 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1824)
Commonwealth v. Cook
6 Serg. & Rawle 577 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1822)