Williams v. Halsey

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Williams v. Halsey

1 Root 418

DecidedMarch 15, 1792

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 418 (Williams v. Halsey) 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

Williams v. Halsey, 1 Root 418 (Colo. 1792).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The defendant in his plea and rejoinder directly avers, that he has kept and performed, the condition of said bond and hath in fact paid one-half of the debt and cost recovered by the sheriff against the plaintiff, on said bond, which by the demurrer is admitted. And the plaintiff’s replying, that the defendant had received of said Woodbridge money and goods for the purpose of paying said debt, which he had not applied, only shows that the plaintiff or said Wood-bridge may recover against him in some other action for said money and goods, but cannot give the plaintiff a right to recover in this action.

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

By the Court.

The defendant in his plea and rejoinder directly avers, that he has kept and performed, the condition of said bond and hath in fact paid one-half of the debt and cost recovered by the sheriff against the plaintiff, on said bond, which by the demurrer is admitted. And the plaintiff’s replying, that the defendant had received of said Woodbridge money and goods for the purpose of paying said debt, which he had not applied, only shows that the plaintiff or said Wood-bridge may recover against him in some other action for said money and goods, but cannot give the plaintiff a right to recover in this action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-halsey-conn-1792.