Home/Connecticut Superior Court/Barton v. Shea

Barton v. Shea

4 Conn. Supp. 278, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 181
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Barton v. Shea. Read the opinion of the Court — 4 Conn. Super. Ct. 278 →
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided October 27, 1936·No. File #50908·Published

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

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 recognisance 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 & Gans Co., 3 Conn. Sup., 434.

Motion denied.

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

Barton v. Shea, 4 Conn. Supp. 278, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 181 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

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

Related

"Harris Millinery Supply" v. Harris Gans
3 Conn. Super. Ct. 434 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1936)
Morse v. Rankin
51 Conn. 326 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1883)