Gogay v. Heins

Connecticut Superior Court

Gogay v. Heins

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 374, 6 Conn. Supp. 374, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 140

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 27, 1938

DocketFile #55668

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 374 (Gogay v. Heins) 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

Gogay v. Heins, 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 374, 6 Conn. Supp. 374, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

QUINLAN, J.

The defendant has filed a motion to vacate clerk’s order in re oyer. The motion is erroneously signed “The Defendant” by Nevas & Nevas, his attorneys. Never' theless the motion to vacate should be passed upon. The plaintiff has set up Exhibit B as the written instrument upon which he relies. The rule simply requires by way of oyer that a copy, and not the original, be filed. This has been done.

*375 It must be assumed that this is the only contract on which he relies and that he will not undertake on the trial to claim other memoranda as and for the contract. If that is his purpose copies of such memoranda should now be filed. If, however, there is memoranda in the way of exhibits which buttress the contract evidentially, I know of no requirement that his evidence shall be filed.

This does not mean that he can escape the effects of alleging a contract which he is bound to rely upon. There is no reason why a demurrer cannot be interposed to the pleading on the assumption that Exhibit B is the contract. The clerk’s order is modified in so far as to conform with this memorandum.

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

QUINLAN, J.

The defendant has filed a motion to vacate clerk’s order in re oyer. The motion is erroneously signed “The Defendant” by Nevas & Nevas, his attorneys. Never' theless the motion to vacate should be passed upon. The plaintiff has set up Exhibit B as the written instrument upon which he relies. The rule simply requires by way of oyer that a copy, and not the original, be filed. This has been done.

*375 It must be assumed that this is the only contract on which he relies and that he will not undertake on the trial to claim other memoranda as and for the contract. If that is his purpose copies of such memoranda should now be filed. If, however, there is memoranda in the way of exhibits which buttress the contract evidentially, I know of no requirement that his evidence shall be filed.

This does not mean that he can escape the effects of alleging a contract which he is bound to rely upon. There is no reason why a demurrer cannot be interposed to the pleading on the assumption that Exhibit B is the contract. The clerk’s order is modified in so far as to conform with this memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 374, 6 Conn. Supp. 374, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gogay-v-heins-connsuperct-1938.