Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1821

Atwater's administrator v. Townsend

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided July 15, 1821 · Being, Brainard, Gave, Hosmer, Other, Same, Were

4 Conn. 47

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Illustrated Postal Card & Novelty Co. v. Holt (Conn. 1912)
Tagart v. Indiana (Mo. 1851)
Wood v. Malin (N.J. 1828)
Wood v. Malin (N.J. 1828)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Hosmer, Ch. J.

In Medbury v. Hopkins, 3 Conn. Rep. 472. it was determined, by this Court, that although in the construction of a contract, reference must be had to the place where it was made; yet with regard to the remedy upon it, that must be governed by the laws of the state where it is sought. On *49this principle, the statute of limitations of the state of New-York was adjudged to be of no avail; and in the point of determination, that case was precisely like the one before the court. This question has often been decided, and must be considered as at rest. Pearsall & al. v. Dwight, 2 Mass. Rep. 84. Smith v. Spinolla, 2 Johns. Rep. 198. Sicard v. Whale, 11 Johns. Rep. 194.

The other point raised in the case was determined in Woodbridge v. Wright and Canfield, 3 Conn. Rep. 523.; and execution must issue in common form.

The other Judges were of the same opinion, except Brainard, J., who being absent, gave no opinion.

New trial not to be granted.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.