Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The Town of East Hartford, Plaintiff in error, v. The Hartford Bridge Company, 1850 — 51 U.S. 541 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
The Town of East Hartford, Plaintiff in error, v. The Hartford Bridge Company
51 U.S. 54110 How. 541·Supreme Court of the United States·1850
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The Town of East Hartford, Plaintiff in error, v. The Hartford Bridge Company.
The decision in the preceding case, between the same parties, affirmed.
In error to the Supreme Court of Errors for the State of Connecticut.
The facts in this case aré the same as in the preceding. It was argued by the same counsel and at the same time.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice WOODBURY]
Mr. Justice WOODBURY
delivered the opinion of the court.
This casé has been settled by the opinion just delivered in the writ of error on the. bill in chancery.
This action was at law, for damagés caused by the town of East Hartford in continuing to use the ferry to the injury of the bridge company, after it had been twice discontinued by the legislature. ' Having no legal right to do this, as has beep already decided, East Hartford is liable for those damages on the ground explained in the other case, and the judgment below must therefore be affirmed.
Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of Errors within and for the State of Connecticut, and was- argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court,, that the judgment of the said Supreme Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs and damages at the rate of six per centum per annum.