Andrews v. Hammond

Connecticut Superior Court

Andrews v. Hammond

1 Conn. Super. Ct. 21, 1 Conn. Supp. 21, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 10

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 8, 1935

DocketFile #46335

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Conn. Super. Ct. 21 (Andrews v. Hammond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. Hammond, 1 Conn. Super. Ct. 21, 1 Conn. Supp. 21, 1935 Conn. Super. LEXIS 10 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

The only claim pressed on this plea in abate' ment is that the document purporting to be a copy of the original process and which was served upon this defendant' is not, in fact, a true copy of the original process. The original process is signed “Frederick Lovejoy, Jr., Commis' sioner of the Superior Court for Fairfield County”. The document served upon this defendant is a true copy of the original process except that the words “Frederick Lovejoy, Jr.” are omitted.

“No writ, pleading, judgment or any kind of proceed' ing in court or course of justice shall be abated, sus' pended, set aside or reversed for any kind of circum.' stantial errors, mistakes or defects, if the person and the cause may be rightly understood and intended by the Court.” G. S. Sec. 5536.

The omission of the words “Frederick Lovejoy, Jr.” do not and cannot, in the slightest degree, affect a full and complete understanding by the Court of the person and cause intended by the process.

“Pleas in abatement are not favored.” Budd, Admr. vs. Meriden Electric R. R. Co., 69 Conn. 272, 283.

The plea in abatement is overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI