Jennette v. Jennette

Connecticut Superior Court

Jennette v. Jennette

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 317, 13 Conn. Supp. 317, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 51

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMay 22, 1945

DocketFile 69954

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 317 (Jennette v. Jennette) 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

Jennette v. Jennette, 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 317, 13 Conn. Supp. 317, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

O’SULLIVAN, J.

The writ in this action seeking a decree of divorce was addressed to the Sheriff of the County of Fair-field or to either of his deputies and directed such official to summon before this court Benjamin F. Jennette, described as of Astoria, Long Island, in the State of New York.

Instead of delivering the process to an officer to whom it was addressed, the authority issuing the writ sought and obtained from the clerk of this court an order of notice which recited, among other things, that “notice of the pendency of said complaint be given by Edward B. Donlens of Norwalk, Connecticut, who is hereby ordered to leave a copy of said complaint and this order of notice with the defendant on or before the 25th day of January, A.D. 1945, at 2311 27th Street, Astoria, Long Island, New York.” Pursuant to the order of notice, Donlens went to Astoria and there left in the *318 hands of Jennette an attested copy of the writ, summons and complaint, as appears from a sworn return attached to the original process.

It is always desirable to have actual notice brought to the attention of nonresident defendants, and, in the instant case, it is true that the defendant had knowledge of the fact that a writ was issued returnable to the Superior Court for Fairfield County.

However, something more than this is necessary before a court may proceed to determine judicial rights. That some' thing is service, and the method of service is prescribed by statute. Sérvice must always be made save in those instances, where by appearing, a defendant may waive it. But where, as here, the defendant does not submit to the court’s jurisdiction, there can be no waiver.

Inasmuch as Donlens was not one of the officials to whom the writ was addressed, there was no legal service and the court is powerless to act. Emilia vs. Emilia, 4 Conn. Sup. 138. Inasmuch as there is no method by which the defect may be cured, the action must be stricken from the docket.

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

O’SULLIVAN, J.

The writ in this action seeking a decree of divorce was addressed to the Sheriff of the County of Fair-field or to either of his deputies and directed such official to summon before this court Benjamin F. Jennette, described as of Astoria, Long Island, in the State of New York.

Instead of delivering the process to an officer to whom it was addressed, the authority issuing the writ sought and obtained from the clerk of this court an order of notice which recited, among other things, that “notice of the pendency of said complaint be given by Edward B. Donlens of Norwalk, Connecticut, who is hereby ordered to leave a copy of said complaint and this order of notice with the defendant on or before the 25th day of January, A.D. 1945, at 2311 27th Street, Astoria, Long Island, New York.” Pursuant to the order of notice, Donlens went to Astoria and there left in the *318 hands of Jennette an attested copy of the writ, summons and complaint, as appears from a sworn return attached to the original process.

It is always desirable to have actual notice brought to the attention of nonresident defendants, and, in the instant case, it is true that the defendant had knowledge of the fact that a writ was issued returnable to the Superior Court for Fairfield County.

However, something more than this is necessary before a court may proceed to determine judicial rights. That some' thing is service, and the method of service is prescribed by statute. Sérvice must always be made save in those instances, where by appearing, a defendant may waive it. But where, as here, the defendant does not submit to the court’s jurisdiction, there can be no waiver.

Inasmuch as Donlens was not one of the officials to whom the writ was addressed, there was no legal service and the court is powerless to act. Emilia vs. Emilia, 4 Conn. Sup. 138. Inasmuch as there is no method by which the defect may be cured, the action must be stricken from the docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Conn. Super. Ct. 317, 13 Conn. Supp. 317, 1945 Conn. Super. LEXIS 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jennette-v-jennette-connsuperct-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack