Rennie v. McCue

Connecticut Superior Court

Rennie v. McCue

18 Conn. Super. Ct. 132, 18 Conn. Supp. 132, 1952 Conn. Super. LEXIS 78

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 10, 1952

DocketFile 85820

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 Conn. Super. Ct. 132 (Rennie v. McCue) 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

Rennie v. McCue, 18 Conn. Super. Ct. 132, 18 Conn. Supp. 132, 1952 Conn. Super. LEXIS 78 (Colo. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

King, J.

The plaintiff sued for the reasonable value of services rendered the defendant’s intestate during his lifetime upon his promise to pay for them out of his estate, by will or other provision.

*133 The defendant, besides what amounted to a general denial, interposed a special defense of the Statute of Limitations, in that the claim involves services rendered more than six years before suit brought.

The plaintiff demurred to the special defense on the basic ground, variously stated, that the cause of action alleged in the complaint would not accrue until the intestate’s death. This is correct whether the agreement was to compensate by will or by other provision effective after death. Hull v. Thoms, 82 Conn. 647, 652; Downey v. Guilfoile, 96 Conn. 383, 385; Foley v. Estate of Coggins, 121 Conn. 97, 100.

However, the plaintiff might well succeed in proving the rendition of the services, even to the full extent claimed in the complaint, and yet fail to prove the express promise to pay after death which is needed to avoid the bar of the Statute of Limitations. If this occurred, the statute (in the absence of any matters tolling the statute which, if they exist, the plaintiff would have to allege in a reply to the special defense) would be a good defense. Consequently, it cannot be said that the special defense might not be effective.

A demurrer to a special defense cannot be sustained if it would be efficacious against any matters provable under the allegations of the complaint. Stamford Dock, & Realty Corporation v. Stamford, 124 Conn. 341, 345.

The demurrer is overruled.

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

King, J.

The plaintiff sued for the reasonable value of services rendered the defendant’s intestate during his lifetime upon his promise to pay for them out of his estate, by will or other provision.

*133 The defendant, besides what amounted to a general denial, interposed a special defense of the Statute of Limitations, in that the claim involves services rendered more than six years before suit brought.

The plaintiff demurred to the special defense on the basic ground, variously stated, that the cause of action alleged in the complaint would not accrue until the intestate’s death. This is correct whether the agreement was to compensate by will or by other provision effective after death. Hull v. Thoms, 82 Conn. 647, 652; Downey v. Guilfoile, 96 Conn. 383, 385; Foley v. Estate of Coggins, 121 Conn. 97, 100.

However, the plaintiff might well succeed in proving the rendition of the services, even to the full extent claimed in the complaint, and yet fail to prove the express promise to pay after death which is needed to avoid the bar of the Statute of Limitations. If this occurred, the statute (in the absence of any matters tolling the statute which, if they exist, the plaintiff would have to allege in a reply to the special defense) would be a good defense. Consequently, it cannot be said that the special defense might not be effective.

A demurrer to a special defense cannot be sustained if it would be efficacious against any matters provable under the allegations of the complaint. Stamford Dock, & Realty Corporation v. Stamford, 124 Conn. 341, 345.

The demurrer is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Conn. Super. Ct. 132, 18 Conn. Supp. 132, 1952 Conn. Super. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rennie-v-mccue-connsuperct-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack