From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Griffith v. Connecticut

U.S.
Dec 12, 1910
218 U.S. 572 (1910)

Summary

In Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Co., 218 U.S. 572, the Supreme Court, approvingly quoted from Moore v. Mut. Res. Life Ins. Co., 129 N.C. 31, as follows: "It is conceded that, as a general rule, a principal has the right to revoke a power of attorney at any time, whether it is in terms irrevocable or not. But to this general rule there are well-established exceptions, as to where it is coupled with an interest, or where it is contractual in its nature, given for a consideration and for the protection of some one or some interest.

Summary of this case from Frazier v. Steel Co.

Opinion

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 515.

Motion to dismiss or affirm. Submitted November 28, 1910. Decided December 12, 1910.

Decided on authority of Griffith v. Connecticut, ante, p. 563.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. I. Henry Harris for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Hugh M. Alcorn for defendant in error.


The parties to this record are the same as in No. 514, just decided, ante, p. 563, and the questions involved are the same, the prosecution being for similar offenses against the Connecticut act of 1907. Both cases were tried together. Upon the conviction in this, however, the trial court imposed the penalty of imprisonment. The two cases were disposed of by the Supreme Court of Errors in one opinion. As the decision in No. 514 is necessarily controlling, it follows that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut must be and it is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Griffith v. Connecticut

U.S.
Dec 12, 1910
218 U.S. 572 (1910)

In Hunter v. Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Co., 218 U.S. 572, the Supreme Court, approvingly quoted from Moore v. Mut. Res. Life Ins. Co., 129 N.C. 31, as follows: "It is conceded that, as a general rule, a principal has the right to revoke a power of attorney at any time, whether it is in terms irrevocable or not. But to this general rule there are well-established exceptions, as to where it is coupled with an interest, or where it is contractual in its nature, given for a consideration and for the protection of some one or some interest.

Summary of this case from Frazier v. Steel Co.
Case details for

Griffith v. Connecticut

Case Details

Full title:GRIFFITH, alias GRIFFIN v . STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Court:U.S.

Date published: Dec 12, 1910

Citations

218 U.S. 572 (1910)

Citing Cases

The Cnty. Comm'n of Fayette Cnty. v. Nat'l Grid NE Holdings 2, LLC

(“[A]s a general rule, [courts] enforce[] private agreements between parties, to the extent that such…

Second Employers' Liability Cases

Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U.S. 516. Objections predicated upon the Fifth Amendment, which are now…