Case ID: kirby_1/html/0140-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Church v. The Inhabitants of the Town of Norwich.
    This was an action brought by Church, in the capacity of administrator on the estate of John Coleman, deceased, against the town of Norwich, for the recovery of a sum of money, paid by the intestate to Joseph Talcott, Esq. treasurer of the state of Connecticut, to the use, and for the proper debt of said town.
    The general issue was pleaded — and a verdict for the plaintiff.
    Eor the defendants, it was moved in arrest of judgment:—
    1. That the jury were much divided, seven being for the plaintiff, and five for the defendants; and that finally it was agreed among themselves, that the five minority should go in silent, and if the court disapproved the verdict, the other seven should then conform to their' opinion: That upon hearing the observations of the court in the case, the jury were generally of opinion, that the verdict ought to have been for the defendants.
    
      2. That the jury have found a large sum in damages, for interest; whereas the law will imply no obligation on the defendants to pay the principal, without actual notice that the money was paid for their benefit, and on their account, and a special request of repayment; and much less for the payment of interest. No such request is laid in the declaration. to have been made.
    3. Because the plaintiff grounds his action wholly on the equity of the case; when, in fact, the equity, as well as the law, appeared on the whole matter to be extremely doubtful.
    4. Because the honorable Judge Dyer, who acted as judge in the case, holds, in fee, an estate in the town of Norwich, subject to the payment of taxes; and so, by law, is interested in the event of the cause; and is also uncle to one of the defendants. . h '
    The motion ruled insufficient.
   By the Court.

(Judge Dyer aud Judge Pitkin giving no opinion.) 1. It does not appear, on inquiry, tbat the jury ■ ever made tbe agreement stated in tbe first exception.

2. Tbougb there is no averment in tbe declaration, tbat tbe defendants bad' notice of tbe payment alleged; yet it is averred, tbey were indebted, and tbat being so -indebted, tbey promised; and tbe jury having found tbe promise, must have found also tbe indebtedness, and must have bad proof of facts necessary to create tbe debt: And as to tbe interest; tbougb tbe jury have given interest, by way of damages, for detention of tbe debt, it is not apparent to tbe court tbat it is wrong. Tbe jury may have bad evidence of an agreement to allow interest, or tbat tbe money was so applied by tbe plaintiff as to stop interest for tbe defendants, or of other special circumstances, to justify them in allowing interest.

3. As to tbe equity of tbe case, tbat it was too doubtful to support an action of this kind: This does not appear from tbe verdict, or tbe declaration; and tbe court are not now to go into tbe evidence.

4. As to tbe supposed interest of Judge Dyer, it was' too inconsiderable and remote for him to have excused himself; and if tbe defendants would object, on account of bis kindred to one of them, tbey should have done it when tbe cause came on: Having waived it then, it is unreasonable tbey should take advantage of it, after hearing bis opinion to accept tbe verdict against them.