Case Name: Curtice v. Beardsly & Mallet
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1792-08
Citations: 1 Root 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: Curtice v. Beardsly & Mallet.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 441–443

Head Matter:
FAIRFIELD COUNTY,
AUGUST TERM, A. D. 1792.
Curtice v. Beardsly & Mallet.
An issue which contains substance, though informal, after verdict, is good.
ERROR to reverse a judgment of tbe County Court, in an action brought by said Curtice v. Beardsly et al. before a justice, and appealed to tbe County Court; wherein tbe plaintiff declared, that on tbe 13th of May, A. D. 1789, tbe defendants, by a certain note of that date promised tbe plaintiff to pay to him £44 lawful money, by tbe 1st of April, A. D. 1793, with tbe lawful interest annually, that one year’s in terest bad become due on. said note, amounting to £2 12s. lawful money wbicb tbe defendants bad never paid, damage £ writ dated 13tb of May, A. D. 1790.
Plea in bar — That said note was given to said Curtice, by said Beardsly and Mallet, jointly, with two other notes, one executed by said Beardsly, and one by said Mallet, separately, for a deed of land, executed by said Curtice to them; that soon after, viz. on tbe 11th of June, A. D. 1789, it was agreed between all said parties to throw up said bargain, and they redelivered to the plaintiff bis said deed, unrecorded, wbicb be accepted and tbe plaintiff delivered up> to tbe defendants their separate notes given as aforesaid; but not having tbe note on which, etc. given by them jointly, with him, be declared that be would, and did, in consideration of having received back bis said deed, absolutely discharge tbe defendants of and from any demand be bad or might have against them by virtue, or on account of said note.
The plaintiff replied — Traversing all tbe facts alleged in tbe defendants’ plea.
Tbe defendants rejoined, by affirming their plea in bar; upon wbicb tbe parties were at issue to tbe court.
Tbe court found tbe facts alleged in tbe defendant’s plea and rejoinder to be true, and gave judgment for tbe defendants to recover their cost.
Error assigned — That tbe issue was immaterial; that judgment ought to have been for tbe plaintiff to have recovered bis just damages and cost.
The exception taken to tbe issue was — That tbe defendants bad not set forth tbe discharge; but bad only averred that tbe plaintiff did discharge them, and that tbe finding of tbe issue by tbe court could not help it.

Opinion:
By the Court.
There is nothing erroneous in the judgment complained of; tbe plea contains matter sufficient to bar the plaintiff of a recovery; wbicb is traversed by tbe plaintiff, and by the court found to be true; and any defect in point of form is aided by the verdict, or the finding of the court. The plea affirms that the plaintiff did discharge the defendants which is a fact denied by the plaintiff, and found by the court; how it was made out and evinced this court cannot inquire.