Ditmeyer v. New Dom Hotel Corp.

Connecticut Superior Court

Ditmeyer v. New Dom Hotel Corp.

16 Conn. Super. Ct. 186, 16 Conn. Supp. 186, 1949 Conn. Super. LEXIS 43

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1949

DocketFile 83526

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Conn. Super. Ct. 186 (Ditmeyer v. New Dom Hotel Corp.) 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

Ditmeyer v. New Dom Hotel Corp., 16 Conn. Super. Ct. 186, 16 Conn. Supp. 186, 1949 Conn. Super. LEXIS 43 (Colo. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

ALCORN, J.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly due to defective premises in the possession and control of the defendant, the plaintiff alleges in paragraph 1 of the complaint that on the date in question the defendant was the owner and in possession and control of the premises and then concludes with the allegation “and said Defendant had the duty of keeping said premises reasonably safe for persons lawfully using said hotel and in particular that portion of said hotel known as the lobby.” The defendant moves to expunge the quoted language because it is a statement of law and therefore irrelevant.

The plaintiff concedes that the language attacked, standing alone, would be open to demurrer but claims that, since it is stated along with facts to support it, it is unobjectionable. Smith v. Furness, 117 Conn. 97, 99. It is fundamental, as claimed by the defendant, that the complaint should contain simply a statement of material facts upon which the plaintiff relies. General Statutes, Rev. 1949, § 7820; Morehouse v. Throckmorton, 72 Conn. 449, 452; Chesebro v. Babcock, 59 Conn. 213, 217. Both parties concede that the language under attack is an allegation of a legal proposition. While it is not necessary to allege matters of law, it is not always improper to do so. Wiggin v. Federal Stock & Grain Co., 77 Conn. 507, 513. The motion to expunge or correct the pleading lies for certain definite reasons specified in the statute. Rev. 1949, § 7822. Of those reasons the defend' ant bases the present motion on the fact that this allegation is irrelevant. While it clearly sets up matter of law, it is not irrelevant. Molineux v. Hurlbut, 79 Conn. 243, 245.

The motion is therefore denied.

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

ALCORN, J.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly due to defective premises in the possession and control of the defendant, the plaintiff alleges in paragraph 1 of the complaint that on the date in question the defendant was the owner and in possession and control of the premises and then concludes with the allegation “and said Defendant had the duty of keeping said premises reasonably safe for persons lawfully using said hotel and in particular that portion of said hotel known as the lobby.” The defendant moves to expunge the quoted language because it is a statement of law and therefore irrelevant.

The plaintiff concedes that the language attacked, standing alone, would be open to demurrer but claims that, since it is stated along with facts to support it, it is unobjectionable. Smith v. Furness, 117 Conn. 97, 99. It is fundamental, as claimed by the defendant, that the complaint should contain simply a statement of material facts upon which the plaintiff relies. General Statutes, Rev. 1949, § 7820; Morehouse v. Throckmorton, 72 Conn. 449, 452; Chesebro v. Babcock, 59 Conn. 213, 217. Both parties concede that the language under attack is an allegation of a legal proposition. While it is not necessary to allege matters of law, it is not always improper to do so. Wiggin v. Federal Stock & Grain Co., 77 Conn. 507, 513. The motion to expunge or correct the pleading lies for certain definite reasons specified in the statute. Rev. 1949, § 7822. Of those reasons the defend' ant bases the present motion on the fact that this allegation is irrelevant. While it clearly sets up matter of law, it is not irrelevant. Molineux v. Hurlbut, 79 Conn. 243, 245.

The motion is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Conn. Super. Ct. 186, 16 Conn. Supp. 186, 1949 Conn. Super. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ditmeyer-v-new-dom-hotel-corp-connsuperct-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack