Riggs v. Zaleski

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Riggs v. Zaleski

44 Conn. 120

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedApril 15, 1876

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 44 Conn. 120 (Riggs v. Zaleski) 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

Riggs v. Zaleski, 44 Conn. 120 (Colo. 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

Park, C. J.

The contract for the loan of the money to the defendant was not made with the conservator but with the ward, and we think it is clear that the conservator cannot sustain an action on it in his own name. The cases of Treat v. Peck, 5 Conn., 280, and Hutchins v. Johnson, 12 Conn., 376, are conclusive of this question.

Under this view the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is clearly erroneous. But it is claimed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant can not take advantage of this error here, because the question was not made in the court below, and we are referred to the rule recently established on the subject. Whatever construction may be given to that rule, the court has always reserved the power to consider errors apparent on the record, even though not assigned by the plaintiff in error; and the error here is so manifest that we think it better to reverse the judgment at once rather than leave the defendant to bring a writ of error, upon which it would inevitably be reversed.

The judgment is therefore reversed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Park, C. J.

The contract for the loan of the money to the defendant was not made with the conservator but with the ward, and we think it is clear that the conservator cannot sustain an action on it in his own name. The cases of Treat v. Peck, 5 Conn., 280, and Hutchins v. Johnson, 12 Conn., 376, are conclusive of this question.

Under this view the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is clearly erroneous. But it is claimed by the counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant can not take advantage of this error here, because the question was not made in the court below, and we are referred to the rule recently established on the subject. Whatever construction may be given to that rule, the court has always reserved the power to consider errors apparent on the record, even though not assigned by the plaintiff in error; and the error here is so manifest that we think it better to reverse the judgment at once rather than leave the defendant to bring a writ of error, upon which it would inevitably be reversed.

The judgment is therefore reversed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 Conn. 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riggs-v-zaleski-conn-1876.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack