Barton v. Shea

Connecticut Superior Court

Barton v. Shea

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 278

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided October 27, 1936·No. File No. 50908·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The defendant has pleaded in abatement because of the admitted failure of the plaintiff to fully comply with General Statutes Section 5619 in regard to the filing of a bond. The plaintiff seeks permission to amend to cure this formal defect. It would doubtless be within the power of the legislature to dispense with this formality but until it does the recognizance or certificate of financial responsibility is a condition precedent to the validity of the writ and the defect is not amendable.

Morse vs. Rankin, 51 Conn. 326; Harris vs. Harris GansCo., 3 Conn. Sup. 434.

Motion denied.

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

The defendant has pleaded in abatement because of the admitted failure of the plaintiff to fully comply with General Statutes Section 5619 in regard to the filing of a bond. The plaintiff seeks permission to amend to cure this formal defect. It would doubtless be within the power of the legislature to dispense with this formality but until it does the recognizance or certificate of financial responsibility is a condition precedent to the validity of the writ and the defect is not amendable.

Morse vs. Rankin, 51 Conn. 326; Harris vs. Harris GansCo., 3 Conn. Sup. 434.

Motion denied.

Barton v. Shea, 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 278 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

4 Conn. Super. Ct. 278 (Barton v. Shea) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related