Case Name: Williams v. Halsey
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1792-03
Citations: 1 Root 418
Docket Number: 
Parties: Williams v. Halsey.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 418–419

Head Matter:
NEW LONDON COUNTY,
MARCH TERM, A. D. 1792.
Williams v. Halsey.
In an action on bond with conditions, if the defendant pleads performance generally, and the plaintiff assigns a breach in particular — and the defendant affirms he has performed in the particular assigned as a breach — if the plaintiff demurs, .judgment must be for the defendant.
Action of debt on bond for £200 dated the 30th of April T789.
The defendant plead in bar — That having prayed oyer of said bond, and the same being read it had the following conditions, viz. Whereas said Williams sometime passed gave bond jointly and severally with Joseph Woodbridge, who is confined in gaol on an execution in favor of Michael Price, for £175 11s. 5d. lawful money, to the sheriff of said county, that the said Woodbridge, should abide a faithful prisoner on said execution, etc. and whereas the said Halsey hath agreed with the said Williams to take the one-half of the risk of said bond jointly with said Williams.' Now if said Williams shall never be put to any cost or damage on account of his giving said bond; or if he shall finally become obliged to pay the same; and then the said Halsey shall pay to said Williams the one-half of the sum that shall be recovered against him, and half of the cost arising thereon, then said obligation is to be void. And the defendant says that he hath at all times kept and performed the condition of said bond.
The plaintiff replied — That soon after executing said bond the said Woodbridge put into the hands of the defendant an order on Robert Winthrop, for £100 lawful money, which was accepted and paid; also he put into his hands goods and merchandise to the amount of £175 lawful money, which were delivered by said Woodbridge, and received by said Halsey, for the purpose of paying said debt to said Price, and indemnifying said Williams and said Halsey, against their said bond: That the defendant regardless of his duty converted said money and goods to his own use; and that the plaintiff hath been sued on said bond to the sheriff, and judgment recovered against him, for £200 which he has been compelled to pay, and the defendant has paid no part thereof.
The defendant rejoined — That before the date of the plaintiff’s writ he made full payment of one-half of the debt and cost recovered by the sheriff against the plaintiff on said bond. Plaintiff demurred.
Judgment — That the rejoinder of the defendant is sufficient.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The defendant in his plea and rejoinder directly avers, that he has kept and performed, the condition of said bond and hath in fact paid one-half of the debt and cost recovered by the sheriff against the plaintiff, on said bond, which by the demurrer is admitted. And the plaintiff's replying, that the defendant had received of said Woodbridge money and goods for the purpose of paying said debt, which he had not applied, only shows that the plaintiff or said Wood-bridge may recover against him in some other action for said money and goods, but cannot give the plaintiff a right to recover in this action.