Morning journal and courier., 1882-06-14
The Court Record.
Supreme Court of ErrOrso


 This court resumed yesterday morning at 10 o'clock in the Supreme Court room, the next floor above the Superior Court room, where court has been held during the interim of adjournment of the latter court.
 The first case argued was that of the Secu- rity Insurance company, of this city, vs. The St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance company. filling for plaintiff, Wright, Stoddard and Thompson for defendant This case, which involves $2,5OO damages, was tried at the last September term of the Supe- rior Court before Judge Beardsley, who re- served the case and the questions at law arising therein for the consideration and advice of the Supreme Court In the origi- nal suit the plaintiff alleged that the defend ant, with other companies, assumed risks on 8 certain Boston property which was de- stroyed by fire. That defendant after agree l ing to settle the losses as adjusted with the plaintiff ,who settled with the insured parties, refused to fulfill their agreement.
 The next case argued was that of Ellis B. Fowler vs. Joseph W. Fowler ct al. It IS a | motion in reservation. The case ori gin l ally tried before the Court of Common Pleas.
 
 repairs of 8 certain mill property in the town of Milford After hearing Judge Torrance, 1 by request of the parties, reserved the points l in dispute for the advice of the Supreme 1 Court of Errors. The case was argued by MT. Hamilton for plaintiff and w. B. Stod- l dard for defendant.
 The next case argued was that of Clark M. Loomis vs. James D. Bragg. The suit was brought to recover for use of a piano. The case was tried in the City Court and issue found for the defendant. On motion of the plaintiffs attorney the case was brought to l this court Oh motion of error. The case l was argued by Arvine for the plaintiff and J. l O. Chamberlain for the defendant
 ! The next case considered, and which was not, finished was that of Levi P. Treadwell l vs. Peter Brooks, in which Brewster, Twee- dy and Scott appeared for plaintiff and Mun- son and Terry for defendant. The suit was | brought to recover for 8 certain piece of land located in the town of Waterbury and | said to have been delivered to Peter Brooks l with good and sufficient deed of warranty. l That said Brooks refused to receive said deed, the sams being defective, and not such as said Ives contracted to give. That said Ives has refused to furnish other and perfect deeds of said land, and sa Treadwell and said Ives, guardian. have refused to furnish ! @ sufficient and perfect quit claim of mortgage. The petitioner says that the real estate con corning which the parties in this suit are in controversy, has been left unimproved for a long time by reason of the existence of this caveat, and the respondent ought not to be allowed to prevent its sale any longer, unless he has shown in himself legal title to it. or an equitable title which he is both able and willing to co vert into legal one. The respondent sets forth that upon the allegations contained in the bill the petitioner has no standing In court. He sets forth II full the respondents caveat, and not only comedies that the allegations contained in it are true Git not anywhere being denied), but also in substance alleges that being true Brooks has no right nor title, either lega or equitable, in his said caveat described, y arising out of the caveat facts
 The arguments in the case were not fin ished and court adjourned until this morning l at 10 o'clock