Siracusa v. McElligott

Connecticut Superior Court

Siracusa v. McElligott

2 Conn. Super. Ct. 164

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 26, 1935

DocketFile No. 10245

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Conn. Super. Ct. 164 (Siracusa v. McElligott) 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

Siracusa v. McElligott, 2 Conn. Super. Ct. 164 (Colo. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

This motion is to expunge the facts alleged in support of the special reply (called "defence" by the plaintiff), which state facts from which if true it appears that the issues in this case have heretofore been litigated. It is claimed in support of the motion that these facts would be admissible under the general denial and that they therefore have no place in the pleadings. It was held in Wilmot, Admr. vs.McPadden, in 78 Conn. 276 that facts which are admissible under a general denial may be pleaded if they make a defense clearer. Facts which support the claim of res adjudicata are usually pleaded. It seems to me to be the better practice to plead them and this practice does not appear to have been successfully challenged.

The motion, for these reasons, is denied.

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

This motion is to expunge the facts alleged in support of the special reply (called "defence" by the plaintiff), which state facts from which if true it appears that the issues in this case have heretofore been litigated. It is claimed in support of the motion that these facts would be admissible under the general denial and that they therefore have no place in the pleadings. It was held in Wilmot, Admr. vs.McPadden, in 78 Conn. 276 that facts which are admissible under a general denial may be pleaded if they make a defense clearer. Facts which support the claim of res adjudicata are usually pleaded. It seems to me to be the better practice to plead them and this practice does not appear to have been successfully challenged.

The motion, for these reasons, is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Conn. Super. Ct. 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siracusa-v-mcelligott-connsuperct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack