Morning journal and courier., 1882-02-28
The Court Record.
Supreme Court Decision

Supreme Court DecIS1Ohs'
 Yesterday afternoon Arthur D. Osborne, clerk of the court received decisions in the following cases:
 Rowland vs. Smith x Co.,, manifest error in judgment and new trial advised. Reasons by Judge Carpenter This case was originally
 brought to the September, 1880, term of the Superior Court, the plaintiff, E. s. Row land, suing Smith & Go. to recover on
 note of $2, 800 which he had discounted. In
 the finding of facts it is shown that about the 1st of October 1877, the firm of Crofut x Co.,, of New Haven wished to obtain loan of about $2, 900, and for that purpose applied, through James M. Smith, a defendant, to the plaintiff for assistance in raising the same. On the 18th of October the note in suit was executed by Crofut & Go. and endorsed by said Smith < Co.,, and handed to the plaintiff, 1 who also endorsed the same. Said James M. l Smith then took the note and procured the same to be discounted at the Yale National \ bank In December, 1877, Crofut & Co., went 1 into bankruptcy, and failed to pay said note at its maturity The same was duly protested 1 January IS, 1878, and was taken up by plain 1 tiff at bank January 19, 1878, and thereupon 1 the defendants became liable to the plaintiff 1 for the amount of said note, which they have ! | tiff proved the note in suit against the estate ] of Crofut < Co.,, and received thereon dlvl- 1 dend from said estate to the amount ot l S156 90, which ill rendering its judgment the l court applied as payment pro tanto on the l note in suit, and found for the plaintiff to l recover the amount of said note with interest l less the sum of S15690 with interest from l the time of it's payment, to wit, Dec. 6, 1878. | The defendants feeling aggrieved moved fo1 1 8 new trial, which was granted and the ques l tions and rules thereon were reserved for the l decision of the Supreme Court of Errors, with 1 the result above stated.
 l Rowland vs Lydia B. Newcomb. New ! trial not advised. Reasons by Judge Granger In this case the defendant gave her note fol | $500 to defendant, giving as security chat ! tel mortgage on certain personal estate Wh1cE
 included piano, parlor carpets, marble tor l tables, etc. Y On the trial before the June | 1880, term of the City Court, Herman B. Smith and Francis K. Benham appeared, ,whc 1 claimed that they had obtained judgment against Mrs. Newcomb before the court fol | the sum of SS216.4O, and that they took out l execution on said judgment The plaintiff
 in his reply said that the defendant although 1 being @ married woman her husband had
 never exercised any of the rights of trustee over her property. Judge William B. Stod dard gave judgment for the defendant and al appeal was made for new trial.
 | In the case of the Meriden Savings bank l vs. the Home Mutual Fire Insurance com ! pany the court decides that it shall be re | argued ;. The case was heard last June. Il
 was reserved by Judge Hovey at the January | term of the Supreme Court, and is an action ! toseompel the payment of 8 $1, 900 insurance risk on John Guiott's house in Wallingford l The dwelling was burned August 16 l 1878. Guiott bought the equity in the ] property, which was mortgagec
 to the plaintiff in this case, of onel Lee, and il | was agreed that he should assume the mort
 gage and give to the bank policy of insur ance as additional security. The mortgage was $60O. The defendant raised some poin about the assumption of the mortgage by l Guiott.
 The Supreme Court refuse to have the cast | of Henry c. Rowe vs. W. M. and R. P l Smith reargued. It is an oyster lot contro 1 versy and before the request for reargument | preferred by John W. filling, had been de cided a new trial had been granted. Thi ] was victory for the Smith Brothers.
 I Superior Court-Civil Side -JudgeBeards ! ley.
 This court will come in this morning at 1( l o'clock.
 The case assigned for trial is that O Townsend vs Anthony (speciaD.
 l Court of Common PIeas--Judge Torrance
 This court came in yesterday afternoon al
 9 o'clock, and heard arguments in the case ot
 Say Brothers vs. Catlin.
 | Court adjourned until this morning at 1(