Chevalier v. Wakefield

82 A. 973, 85 Conn. 374, 1912 Conn. LEXIS 136
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedApril 9, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 82 A. 973 (Chevalier v. Wakefield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chevalier v. Wakefield, 82 A. 973, 85 Conn. 374, 1912 Conn. LEXIS 136 (Colo. 1912).

Opinion

Prentice, J.

“Writs of error shall be served and returned as other civil process.” General Statutes, § 822. Civil process to this court must be served at least thirty days inclusive before the day of the sitting of the court, and returned at least twenty days before that day. General Statutes, §§ 563, 564. To this requirement there is no exception. This writ was not so served or returned. Possibly it would have been wise had the amendment of the charter of the city of Hartford (14 Special Laws, p. 600), which conferred upon the City Court of that city exclusive jurisdiction of all civil actions theretofore cognizable by justices of the peace for the town of Hartford, embodied some special provision regulating the time of service and return of writs of error from its summary process judgments. See Marsh v. Burhans, 79 Conn. 306, 64 Atl. 739. If so, the remedy lies with the General Assembly and not with this court. The statutory requirement is clear and definite, and cannot be ignored.

The writ instituted an independent action. The authority signing it made it returnable to the present term. It cannot, without losing its legal identity, be converted into one returnable to a later term, and thus regarded as merely prematurely upon the docket. It must fail as any other action must which is not served and returned within the prescribed period before its return day. Gaylord v. Payne, 3 Conn. 258.

The motion to erase the plea is denied, the demurrer to the plea in abatement overruled, the plea sustained, and the writ abated.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Related

Reynolds v. Allicock, No. Fa99-0721565 (Feb. 9, 2001)
2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 2456 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2001)
Rogozinski v. American Food Service Equipment Corp.
559 A.2d 1110 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)
Jepsen v. Toni Co.
133 A.2d 150 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1957)
Cutting v. Yudkin
79 A.2d 823 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1951)
Wilfred A. Lamothe v. Bessie Gordon
15 Conn. Super. Ct. 504 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1948)
Daley v. Board of Police Commissioners of East Hartford
54 A.2d 501 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1947)
Reilly v. State
175 A. 582 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1934)
Michelin v. MacDonald
159 A. 636 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A. 973, 85 Conn. 374, 1912 Conn. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chevalier-v-wakefield-conn-1912.