Case Name: Ferriss v. Ferriss
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1792-01
Citations: 1 Root 365
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ferriss v. Ferriss.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 365–365

Head Matter:
Ferriss v. Ferriss.
The action of trover may be sustained in certain eases, where an action of trespass would have lain, and is not barred by the Statute of Limitation.
ActioN of trover for a horse, ox, and lteifer, which were lost in A. D. 1779, and by finding liad come into the hands of the defendant, and by him converted in January A. D. 1787, to his own use; per writ dated the 2d of April, A. D. 1790.
Plea in bar — That on the 14th of July, in A. D. 1779, the defendant with others, with force and arms broke and entered the plaintiff’s close, and took and carried away said horse, ox and heifer, mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration, and did dispose of them to his own use; that the taking of said creatures was by force and arms and is the same finding and converting mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration, and is more than three years from the date and impetration of the plaintiff’s writ; and by the Statute of Limitation, respecting actions of trespass the plaintiff is barred. And as to any other conversion of said horse, ox and heifer, the defendant says he is not guilty. The plaintiff demurred to the defendant’s plea in bar.

Opinion:
Judgment — That the plea in bar is insufficient. There are certain cases in which trover is the proper action; there are others in which the action of trespass is the proper remedy; there are others in which either trover or trespass may be brought indifferently; and a recovery in one will be a bar to the other, which is this case. All this was open to the legislature, when they enacted a limitation to actions of trespass, and left the action of trover unrestrained; and this court cannot alter the law.