Channer v. Davenport Surety Co., No. Cv 96-0565178 (Oct. 31, 2001)

Connecticut Superior Court

Channer v. Davenport Surety Co., No. Cv 96-0565178 (Oct. 31, 2001)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14867-b

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 31, 2001

DocketNo. CV 96-0565178

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14867-b (Channer v. Davenport Surety Co., No. Cv 96-0565178 (Oct. 31, 2001)) 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

Channer v. Davenport Surety Co., No. Cv 96-0565178 (Oct. 31, 2001), 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14867-b (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: HEARING IN DAMAGES This matter came before the court on a claim for damages against each of the defendants for overcharging the plaintiff in providing him several bail bonds. After the action was withdrawn as against the two appearing defendants, Davenport Surety Company, Inc. and James J. Carbone, the plaintiff obtained default for failure to appear as against the defendant Carl Schwartz and requested a hearing in damages. The court heard the plaintiff on his claim and agreed to enter a judgment if the papers in the file were proper. The return of the sheriff as to service demonstrates that there was not due and legal service made on Carl Schwartz and a check of the file does not demonstrate proper service was ever subsequently made.

C.G.S. § 52-57 (a) requires service in any civil action shall be "by leaving a true and attested copy of it (process), including the declaration or complaint, with the defendant, or at his usual place of abode, in this state." The sheriff in his return states that attempting such service he learned that Carl Schwartz had not been there in over one year and that he did not have time to investigate. See Clover v. Urban,108 Conn. 13, 16.

For the above reason the action against the defendant, Carl Schwartz, is dismissed. CT Page 14867-c

Corrigan Judge Trial Referee

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: HEARING IN DAMAGES This matter came before the court on a claim for damages against each of the defendants for overcharging the plaintiff in providing him several bail bonds. After the action was withdrawn as against the two appearing defendants, Davenport Surety Company, Inc. and James J. Carbone, the plaintiff obtained default for failure to appear as against the defendant Carl Schwartz and requested a hearing in damages. The court heard the plaintiff on his claim and agreed to enter a judgment if the papers in the file were proper. The return of the sheriff as to service demonstrates that there was not due and legal service made on Carl Schwartz and a check of the file does not demonstrate proper service was ever subsequently made.

C.G.S. § 52-57 (a) requires service in any civil action shall be "by leaving a true and attested copy of it (process), including the declaration or complaint, with the defendant, or at his usual place of abode, in this state." The sheriff in his return states that attempting such service he learned that Carl Schwartz had not been there in over one year and that he did not have time to investigate. See Clover v. Urban,108 Conn. 13, 16.

For the above reason the action against the defendant, Carl Schwartz, is dismissed. CT Page 14867-c

Corrigan Judge Trial Referee

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 14867-b, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/channer-v-davenport-surety-co-no-cv-96-0565178-oct-31-2001-connsuperct-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack