This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1859 edition. Excerpt: ...with our law in other cases. Walton v. Scott, 4 Conn. Rep. 527. But we forbear a decision of these questions. It was also claimed, that the judgment of the superior court was erroneous, because it left undecided the motion in arrest of judgment. We do not say that a motion in arrest, cannot, in any case, be interposed, after an issue put to, and tried by the court, instead of the jury; it is certainly an unusual practice in this state; but, as in the present case, the declaration is adjudged sufficient, and as the motion in arrest, must, therefore, have been overruled, the defendant has no ground of complaint, because a. formal judgment was not entered up against him upon it. There is no error in the judgment of the superior court. Where a mortgage was given conditioned to save the mortgagee harmless from his indorsement of specified notes, and such notes, as they respectively became due, were renewed, by the substitution of other not(s or drafls having 'difl'erent names on them; but the obligation of the original indorsement by the mortgagee was preserved through the whole series of renewals and substitutions, without any new credit being given, and the substituted paper was ultimately paid by him; the debt thus paid being the same debt for the security of which he made the original indorsement; it was held, on a bill of foreclosure against the mortgagor and subsequent mortgagees, that the plaintifi' was entitled to the relief sought. The case of Peters v. Goodrich, 3 Conn. P-ep. 146. is not a binding authority. Where a mortgage embracing personal property, was given to secure certain debts due to the mortgagee, and liabilities assumed by him for the benefit of the mortgagor; and the mortgagee permitted such personal property to go...