صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Ide, Edwards v.

Haddox, Catlin v.
Hale v. Morse,

Hartford (City of,) v. County of Hartford,

Hartwick, State v.

Hayden v. Smith,

Healey v. City of New Haven,

Heath v. Bancroft,

Heath v. Bates,

Hemingway v. Coleman,

Hilton v. Osgood,

Hine, Citizens' National Bank v.

Hinman, Newberry v.

Hoffman, Elphick v.
Hughes v. Dailey,
Hull v. Bartlett,
Hull v. Gallup,
Husted, Mead v.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Johnson, Kingsley v.
Johnson v. Olmsted,

Kelly v. Wiard,

King, Filley v.

Kingsley v. Johnson,

G.

[ocr errors]

H.

I.

J.

K.

Kane v. New York and New England R. R. Co.,

Keney, Goodwin v.

L.

La Croix v. County Commissioners,

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

M.

Pierpont v. Williams,
Potter v. Sanborn,

Pratt v. Stewart,

N.

[ocr errors]

New Britain (City of,) N. York, New Haven and Hartford
R. R. Co. v.

New Haven (City of,) Healey v.

New Haven and Northampton Co., Allen v.

New York and New England R. R. Co., Kane v.

New York, New Haven and Hartford R. R. Co. v. City of
New Britain,

Norwich (City of,) Burdick v.

0.

[ocr errors]

P.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Page

411

140

134

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

162

473

347

140

248

336

191

. 509

. 110

570

347

481

71

232

130

40

394

243

139

40 225

36 483 576

58

483 450

452 339

Rohrmayer, Flannery v.
Rood v. Stevens,
Rosenman, Baldwin v.
Rowland v. Smith,
Russell v. Bristol,

Vail v. Vail,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Zacarino v. Pallotti,

[ocr errors]

Sanborn, Potter v.
Security Co. v. Brinley,
Seeley v. Town of Litchfield,

Sisson, Butler v.

Smith, Hayden v.

Smith, Pasco v.
Smith, Rowland v.
Smith v. Staples,
Smith, State v.
Smith v. Stevens,
Spencer v. Bidwell,

Sprague Manufacturing Co., De Wolf v.

Staples, Smith v.
State v. Hartwick,
State v. Neuner,
State v. Smith,

State v. Ward,
Stevens v. Battell,

Stevens, Rood v.

Stewart, Pratt v.

Stonington (Town of,) Williams v.

.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

V.

W.

Ward, State v.
Whitman, Bailey v.
Wiard, Kelly v.

Williams v. Town of Stonington,

Wilson, Pierpont v.

Z.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Page.

27

45

105

404

251

452

48

134

580

83

576

404

87

376

181

61

282

87

101

232

376

429

155

45

339

229

52

429

79

443

229 450

36

P. 110, first line of head note-for 1775 read 1875.

"403, add to the last line-" except LOOMIS, J., who dissented. Vol. 29, p. 577, last line-for 688 read 588.

66

66 "589, last line but one-for two read three.

66

66

ERRATA.

48,398, ninth line-for H. S. Pardee read H. E. Pardee.

66 $590, sixth line-for 1857 read 1851.

66

SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS

OF THE

STATE OF CONNECTICUT.

DISTRICT OF HARTFORD,

EMBRACING THE COUNTIES OF

HARTFORD, WINDHAM, LITCHFIELD, MIDDLESEX AND TOLLAND.

HELD ON THE FIRST TUESDAY OF JANUARY, 1881.
[Continued from the last volume.]

Present

PARK, C. J., CARPENTER, PARDEE, LOOMIS AND
GRANGER, Js.

FRANCES C. BLODGETT AND OTHERS v8. THE AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS.

A copartnership of which B had for several years been the senior member and his son and son-in-law the other members, was reorganized for the prosecution of the same business under partnership articles in which it was provided that the partnership should not be dissolved by the death of B, but that his executor should act in his stead in the performance of his stipulations; that each partner should be credited by the new firm with the amount of capital he had already put in, with interest at seven per cent. in B's favor and at six per cent. in favor of the others; that the profits should be taken by the other partners, and that as fast as capital could be spared it should be used to reduce by payments the amount B had in the concern. B died soon after, leaving a will in which he disposed of his property, but in which he made no further provision with regard to the partnership. The remaining members of the firm, one of whom was his executor, continued the business as before, and the firm finally failed. Held

1. That B's estate was liable for debts of the partnership contracted after his death.

2. That this liability was not limited to the amount that he had put into the partnership, but extended to his whole estate. VOL. XLIX.-2.

« السابقةمتابعة »