Lord v. Russell

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Lord v. Russell

29 A. 242, 64 Conn. 86, 1894 Conn. LEXIS 9

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 19, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 29 A. 242 (Lord v. Russell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lord v. Russell, 29 A. 242, 64 Conn. 86, 1894 Conn. LEXIS 9 (Colo. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Andrews, C. J.

We think there was no error. The note itself being made a part of the complaint showed on its face that it had been executed by the defendant. The form is the same as that used in the Practice Act; form 212. The averment that the note was thfe property of the plaintiff implied a delivery to her. It is a rule of pleading that there need be no direct allegation of a fact which otherwise sufficiently appears; nor of a fact necessarily implied from the other averments. 1 Chitty Pleading, 225. Bliss on Code Pleading, § 176. The delivery, even of a deed, although essential to its validity, need not be averred in pleading. 1 Chitty Pleading, 365. New Conn. Civil Officer, p. 13. Prindle v. Caruthers, 15 N. Y., 425; Keteltas v. Meyers, 19 id., 231; Farmers & M. Bank v. Wadsworth, 24 id., 547. A court ought not to misunderstand or refuse to comprehend the or[88]*88dinary import of the words used, nor the meaning of the facts alleged. Colburn v. Tolles, 18 Conn., 524; Draper v. Moriarty, 45 id., 476.

There is no error in the judgment appealed from.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Andrews, C. J.

We think there was no error. The note itself being made a part of the complaint showed on its face that it had been executed by the defendant. The form is the same as that used in the Practice Act; form 212. The averment that the note was thfe property of the plaintiff implied a delivery to her. It is a rule of pleading that there need be no direct allegation of a fact which otherwise sufficiently appears; nor of a fact necessarily implied from the other averments. 1 Chitty Pleading, 225. Bliss on Code Pleading, § 176. The delivery, even of a deed, although essential to its validity, need not be averred in pleading. 1 Chitty Pleading, 365. New Conn. Civil Officer, p. 13. Prindle v. Caruthers, 15 N. Y., 425; Keteltas v. Meyers, 19 id., 231; Farmers & M. Bank v. Wadsworth, 24 id., 547. A court ought not to misunderstand or refuse to comprehend the or[88]*88dinary import of the words used, nor the meaning of the facts alleged. Colburn v. Tolles, 18 Conn., 524; Draper v. Moriarty, 45 id., 476.

There is no error in the judgment appealed from.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A. 242, 64 Conn. 86, 1894 Conn. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lord-v-russell-conn-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack