Case Name: Beardsley v. Bennett
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1802
Citations: 1 Day 107
Docket Number: 
Parties: Beardsley v. Bennett.
Judges: 
Reporter: Day's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 107–109

Head Matter:
Beardsley v. Bennett.
In the original petition,
Daniel Bkx.nett, 1\ litfcncr; Silas Beardsley,Daniel Kinney, and Job Turrell, jun. Respondents.
A. B. and C. by fraudulent practices upon D. obtain from him a promissory note, payable to C. who is a bankrupt; chancery will relieve against this note.
rri -L HIS was a petition in chancery to the County Court, stating, that on the 19th of October 1799, Turrell, one of the respondents, resident in New-Milford in the County of Litchfield, proposed to sell to the petitioner a lot of land in the Susquehanna Purchase, in Pennsylvania, and offered to procure a warrantee deed of the same from Kinney, another of the respondents, resident in Pennsylvania, defending against all claims, except the adverse claims of the State of Pennsylvania ; that Turrell declared to the petitioner, that he knew Kinney to be the legal owner of the Connecticut claim to said land, that he had a good right to convey the same, and that he was a man of responsibility, and of a fair character ; that the petitioner, confiding in the representations of Turrell as to the title, and being himself ac quainted with the quality of the land, agreed with Tttr-rell to purchase the same ; and that, upon TurrclPs procuring from Kinney and delivering to the petitioner a deed of said land, purporting to be a regular conveyance, the petitioner executed eight promissory notes, of S20 each, in payment thereof, which, at the request of Tnr-re.ll, were made payable to Beardsley, another of the respondents, resident in Pennsylvania. The petitioner then averred, that Kinney never had any title to said land, and that the representations of Turrell to the petitioner respecting the same were false and fraudulent; that the notes were obtained from the petitioner without any consideration or benefit to him; that the contract was illegal and contrary to the express provisions of the then existing laws of Pennsylvania; that the respondents were all concerned in the fraud ; and that Kinney and Beardsley were both bankrupts. After stating that five of the notes had been put in suit, the petition concluded, by praying for an injunction against any further proceedings at law thereon, and that they, and those not in suit, might be cancelled.
1802.
The County Court found the facts as stated in the petition, and thereupon decreed against the notes, and ordered them to be delivered up, on a joint penalty against the then respondents. The Superior Court, on a writ of error, affirmed that decree.
In the writ of error to this Court, the gener d error was assigned.
Smith, (of Woodbury) and Bronson, for the plaintiffs jn error.
Smith, (of New-Haven) and Skinner, for the defendant.

Opinion:
The Court
affirmed the judgment, Daggett and Edmond, Asts. dissenting, on the ground, that, for aught which appeared, Turrell was a man of property, and the ~ i • petitioner had a clear and adequate remedy against him,, for the fraud, in an action at law. ,