Hyatt v. Wallingford Gas Light Co., Inc.

Connecticut Superior Court

Hyatt v. Wallingford Gas Light Co., Inc.

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 520, 9 Conn. Supp. 520, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 130

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJuly 2, 1941

DocketFile 60335

StatusPublished

This text of 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 520 (Hyatt v. Wallingford Gas Light Co., Inc.) 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

Hyatt v. Wallingford Gas Light Co., Inc., 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 520, 9 Conn. Supp. 520, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 130 (Colo. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

KING, J.

The plaintiff, a resident of Wallingford, Connecticut, sued the defendant Standard Gas Equipment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and the defendant Wallingford Gas Light Co., Inc. The latter corporation is also a resident of Wallingford, and is not involved in the determination of the present plea.

No attachment of the defendant’s property within this State was made (Harris vs. Weed, 89 Conn. 214, 221; Barber vs. Morgan, 84 id. 618, 620; Gen. Stat. [1930] §5714), but service of summons was purportedly made within Connecticut on the Secretary of State under section 3489 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, and on one Wachtellhausen, claimed to have been the defendant’s agent, to accept service.

The defendant filed a plea in abatement and to the juris' diction, each and every allegation of which was admitted by the plaintiff in an answer thereto, as on file. The plea ah leged, in substance, that the defendant was a Maryland cor' poration, that it had not appointed the Secretary of State its agent to accept service of process, that it had not given Wachtellhausen such authority and that Wachtellhausen occupied none of the positions or relationships with respect to the defendant enumerated in the last three sentences of section 5469 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930. The de' feridant was a foreign corporation as defined in section 3486 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930.

*522 Under these circumstances the court had no jurisdiction to render an in personam judgment against the defendant and, in the absence of an attachment of its property located within this State, no jurisdiction to render any judgment against it at all. FitzSimmons vs. International Association of Machinists, 125 Conn. 490, 493.

Whether the defendant has violated section 3491 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, is immaterial in the decision of this plea, and depends upon whether or not it has been “transacting business” within this State. Alfred M. Best Co., Inc. vs. Goldstein, 124 Conn. 597, 601.

The combined plea to the jurisdiction and in abatement was unnecessary, but not improper. Leventhal Furniture Co., Inc. vs. Crescent Furniture Co., Inc., 121 Conn. 343, 347.

Judgment may be entered sustaining the plea to the juris' diction and in abatement.

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

KING, J.

The plaintiff, a resident of Wallingford, Connecticut, sued the defendant Standard Gas Equipment Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) and the defendant Wallingford Gas Light Co., Inc. The latter corporation is also a resident of Wallingford, and is not involved in the determination of the present plea.

No attachment of the defendant’s property within this State was made (Harris vs. Weed, 89 Conn. 214, 221; Barber vs. Morgan, 84 id. 618, 620; Gen. Stat. [1930] §5714), but service of summons was purportedly made within Connecticut on the Secretary of State under section 3489 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, and on one Wachtellhausen, claimed to have been the defendant’s agent, to accept service.

The defendant filed a plea in abatement and to the juris' diction, each and every allegation of which was admitted by the plaintiff in an answer thereto, as on file. The plea ah leged, in substance, that the defendant was a Maryland cor' poration, that it had not appointed the Secretary of State its agent to accept service of process, that it had not given Wachtellhausen such authority and that Wachtellhausen occupied none of the positions or relationships with respect to the defendant enumerated in the last three sentences of section 5469 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930. The de' feridant was a foreign corporation as defined in section 3486 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930.

*522 Under these circumstances the court had no jurisdiction to render an in personam judgment against the defendant and, in the absence of an attachment of its property located within this State, no jurisdiction to render any judgment against it at all. FitzSimmons vs. International Association of Machinists, 125 Conn. 490, 493.

Whether the defendant has violated section 3491 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, is immaterial in the decision of this plea, and depends upon whether or not it has been “transacting business” within this State. Alfred M. Best Co., Inc. vs. Goldstein, 124 Conn. 597, 601.

The combined plea to the jurisdiction and in abatement was unnecessary, but not improper. Leventhal Furniture Co., Inc. vs. Crescent Furniture Co., Inc., 121 Conn. 343, 347.

Judgment may be entered sustaining the plea to the juris' diction and in abatement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 520, 9 Conn. Supp. 520, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hyatt-v-wallingford-gas-light-co-inc-connsuperct-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack