Case Name: Tweedy v. Picket
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1803
Citations: 1 Day 109
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tweedy v. Picket.
Judges: 
Reporter: Day's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 109–111

Head Matter:
Tweedy v. Picket.
In the Court below,
Tweedy and Howard, Plaintiffs; Thomas Picket, Defendant.
In order to make out a title to land, by ^eoution* it" must be shewn, that the appraisers were that they were sworn according-tolaw. An appraiser, ^ thtTcredb ent” within the "^statute,
r-Tp 1 HIS was an action of ejectment.
The plaintiffs claimed title by the levy oían execution ; the defendant, by a conveyance from Ebenezer Picket.
The jury, found a special verdict, from which it appeared, that on the 13th of September, 1T96, Seymour „. . , . , r , _ , , . • r 1-ickety being seized of tne demancted premises m iec-simple, conveyed the same to Ebenezer Picket, who immediately entered, and, on the SOth of March; 1799, at half past two., in the afternoon, procured his deed to be recorded, and that on the 8th of October, 1796, Ebenezer Picket conveyed the premises to the defendant, who immediately entered and continued in possession. It also appeared, that on the 29th of March, 1799, the plaintiffs attached the premises as the property of Seymour Picket, which attachment was recorded on theSOtk of March, 1799, at half past eleven, in the forenoon; that the plaintiffs afterwards obtained judgment against Seymour Picket, took out execution, and levied the same on the premises ; that the plaintiffs appointed one appraiser, and the execution debtor neglecting to appoint any, the justice appointed the other two, one of whom tvas 1 ¡um~ as P' jYhite, the uncle of Harvard’s wife; and that the »' premises were, by said appraisers, set off to the rlain-tiffs, in satisfaction of their execution. It was not found, by the special verdict, that any oath was administered to the appraisers. The Superior Court adjudged the law to be, that the plaintiffs had not shewn a good title, and rendered judgment for the defendant.
1803.
While this case was on trial to the jury, the defendant offered parol evidence, to prove the relation subsisting between the appraiser and creditor, which was objected to, by the plaintiffs, and admitted, by the Court, A bill of exceptions was thereupon filed.
Smith, (of Woodbury) and Gould, for the plaintiffs.
Ingersoll and Whittlesey, (of Danbury) for the defendant.
In support of the judgment below, it was contended,
1. That the appraiser, being uncle by marriage i<. one of the plaintiffs, was not “ indifferent,” within the meaning of the statute.
2, That as it did not appear, by the special verdict, that the appraisers were sworn, the plaintiffs had failed of making out a title, by virtue of the execution ; and, of course, had received no. legal injury, by the judgment of the Superior Court, in admitting the testimony, if it were erroneous.
On the other side, it was urged, that the justice is, by law, the sole judge of the qualifications of the appraisers ; and having appointed them, no court can revise his proceedings. In such case, the justice acts judicially, and. therefore, conclusively. lie may be mistaken in the facts: but those facts cannot afterwards be questioned.
Stat. 173.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Trumbull, Gov. not judging, Hill-house, Ast. absent, Treadwell, Lt. Gov. Ellsworth, Chester, Allen, and Edmond, Asts. dissenting,
The judgment was affirmed.