Sumner

V.

our own, to wit,

such mode as is conformable to the Wentworth. laws of the state, province or kingdom in which the deed is executed. If this be the sound construction of the laws passed on this subject, this deed must be valid, and the question then arises whether the feme covert shall be bound by the covenants in the deed. The doctrine cited from Bacon's Abridgment we consider to be in point. It is a mistaken idea, that the fine sur concessit is confined to a grant for life or years. Judge Blackstone says it is usually for life or years; which implies, that it is not always so; but if I am not mistaken, the case of Wotton and Hale, quoted in the margin of Bacon's Abridgment, shews that grant was in fee, but the authority is not present.

Eac Abr vol. 1.

P 496

2 Aco. 684. 703.

It is said to be inequitable to recover damages against the widow in this action, and a doubt is raised whether she could compel contribution among the heirs of her late husband. This Court will consider the case sub judice, and not perplex the present motion with the consideration and resolution of possible

cases.

We conceive it clear, that the deed was improperly excluded from the Jury, and therefore we are entitled to a trial de novo.

Judgment of Court. New trial not granted. Motion dismissed with costs.

And now, on review, January term, A. D. 1801, the cause went again to the Jury. Exception was again taken to the deed's being read in evidence. Further argument was heard, and the Court finally

decided, that the deed could not be read to the Jury in support of the plaintiff's declaration.

Sumner

V.

Wentworth.

Plaintiff nonsuited.

Nathaniel Chipman, Darius Chipman, Daniel Chipman, Amos Marsh, and T. Squires, for plain

tiff.

S. Hitchcock, S. Miller, and C. Smith, for defendant.

JOHN N. BENNET, Appellee,

against

DAVID WHITNEY, Appellant.

third day

THE attorney for the appellant, on the of the term, moved to enter his appeal. He stated, that after the Court arose the second day of the term he delivered the copies certified by the Clerk of the County Court to the Clerk of this Court; and that he, with other counsel for the appellant, were detained on their way to Court, by the act of Providence.

Storrs, for appellee, opposed the motion as repugnant to the rule of Court, and cited memoriter the case of Daniel Squire v. Daniel Chipman, before this Court, where, on a like motion, the Court decided the appellant should not have leave to enter his appeal.

Appellant al

lowed to enter

his appeal on

term, being retarded by ri

the third day of

gour of season.

Bennet

V.

Whitney.

By the Court. The inclemency of the season is singular and evident, and ought to operate a reasonable excuse for the neglect of the appellant. Let the appellant enter his appeal without costs.

Combination to

MATHEW PHELPS, Appellee,

against

MOSES GODDARD and BUEL HITCHCOCK,

Appellants.

ATTACH Moses Goddard and Buel Hitchcock, of entice a citizen Addison, in the County of Addison, et al. to answer

within the ju

another State

of procuring

rested on civil

tionable, tho

the debt for

which he is ar rested is justly due.

risdiction of unto Mathew Phelps, of New-Haven, in the same for the purpose County, in a plea of trespass on the case. Wherehim to be ar- upon the plaintiff declares and says, that at Newprocess, is ac. Haven aforesaid, on the 20th day of July, A. D. 1798, he the plaintiff then was, long before had been, and still is an inhabitant of said New-Haven; and the said defendants, combining, conspiring and confederating together to wrong and injure the plaintiff, did entice and persuade the plaintiff to go to Crown Point, within the jurisdiction of the State of New-York, from his home and his friends, and from the State of which he was an inhabitant as aforesaid; and the plaintiff so being fraudulently enticed and persuaded from his friends and acquaintance, among strangers and out of the State of which he was an inhabitant as aforesaid, at Crown Point aforesaid, in the State of New-York aforesaid, on the 20th day of July afore

Phelps

V.

Hitchcock.

said, they procured the plaintiff to be arrested on a process issued from the Supreme Court of the State Goddard and of New-York aforesaid, in the name of one William Finch against the plaintiff on an old demand in favour of the said William Finch against the plaintiff for the sum of three hundred dollars, from the pay. ment of which said demand of the said William Finch he the plaintiff had long before the arrest aforesaid been exonerated in this State by the statute of limitations; and the plaintiff being so arrested as aforesaid, on the process aforesaid, for such demand of the said William as aforesaid, was on said process then and there, to wit, at Crown Point aforesaid, on the same 20th day of July aforesaid, held a prisoner for the space of six hours, when the plaintiff, for the purpose of obtaining his discharge from said imprisonment at great trouble and expense procured and entered bail for his the plaintiff's appearance in said action before the Supreme Court of the State of New-York aforesaid; and the plaintiff further says, that the said Moses, Buel et al. further fraudulently combining and confederating together against the plaintiff as aforesaid, procured the process so served on the plaintiff as aforesaid to be returned to the Supreme Court of the State of New-York as aforesaid, and entered in said Court, where the same process aforesaid is yet pending, and he the plaintiff is liable, by the laws of the State of New-York aforesaid to have a judgment of the said Supreme Court rendered against him in the process aforesaid, for the whole sum of the aforesaid demand so existing against him by the laws of the State of New-York as aforesaid, although the same demand had, long before the confederacy and

Phelps

V.

combination of the said Moses, Buel, &c. and their

Goddard and arrest of the plaintiff so made as aforesaid, been

Hitchcock.

barred by the statute of limitations of this State. By reason of which the plaintiff hath been put to great cost, charge, expense and trouble in defending in the action aforesaid on the process aforesaid, on which he the plaintiff was so arrested as aforesaid, and by the fraudulent combination and confederacy of the said Moses, Buel, &c. as aforesaid, is injured and made worse, as he says, 3,000 dollars.

Goddard and Hitchcock arrested, and non est as to the other confederates.

At the County Court, the cause went to the Jury on the general issue. Verdict for plaintiff, 100 dollars. Defendants gave notice they should waive their plea at the Supreme Court, and demur generally to the declaration.

At this term, the demurrer was argued and decided.

Amos Marsh, in support of the demurrer. This is a novel declaration. If we should search from the earliest book of entries to the most modern, we shall never find one of this nature. It is true, variety of injury will continually produce a variety of declarations in case. But then, to be correct, although they differ in allegation, they must be founded on the great and leading principles of the law. This declaration appears to be equally destitute of form and principle. In the present argument we shall not descend to notice the defects of form, which may possibly be cured by jeofails; but we shall contend against the substance of it.