Cooley Chevrolet Co. v. McNeill

11 Conn. Supp. 373, 1943 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3
Connecticut Superior Court·Decided January 7, 1943·No. File No. 63025·Published

Opinion

Memorandum of decision on motion to erase from docket.

MUNGER, J.

The return shows service of the writ upon the defendant by leaving a copy at his usual place of abode in this State. At the time he was not an inhabitant or resident of this State but. was a resident of Florida. The motion to erase, however, must be denied because it is not the proper proceeding. “A motion to erase the case from the docket will only be granted when it clearly appears from the record that the court is without jurisdiction.” Reilly vs. Pepe Co., 108 Conn. 436, 443. Of course this is not saying that the defendant is not without remedy, but as it does not appear upon the face of the record that the court is without a jurisdiction and because in fact its want of jurisdiction is based on facts outside the record, the motion as above stated to erase the case from the docket must be denied upon the authority of the Reilly case cited.

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

Cooley Chevrolet Co. v. McNeill, 11 Conn. Supp. 373, 1943 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3 (Colo. Ct. App. 1943).

11 Conn. Supp. 373 (Cooley Chevrolet Co. v. McNeill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Reilly v. Antonio Pepe Co.
143 A. 568 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1928)