Sommers v. Adelman

99 A. 50, 90 Conn. 713, 1916 Conn. LEXIS 125
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJune 27, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 99 A. 50 (Sommers v. Adelman) 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
Sommers v. Adelman, 99 A. 50, 90 Conn. 713, 1916 Conn. LEXIS 125 (Colo. 1916).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Our statutes prescribing the proqedure in the case of appeals under conditions here presented, direct that they shall be taken within ten days from the rendition of judgment. General Statutes, §§ 791, 806. The last of the ten days after the rendition of judgment in this case, reckoning by the calendar, fell upon Sunday. Upon that day the plaintiff was powerless to take an appeal. We have adopted the rule that where the last day of a period within which an act may be done, which may not be done Sunday, falls upon such day, performance may be made on the following day. That rule is applicable to and governs the situation here presented. Avery v. Stewart, 2 Conn. 69; Sands v. Lyon, 18 Conn. 18, 31. Other courts have so held in respect to matters of court procedure. Cock v. Bunn, 6 John. Rep. (N. Y.) 326; Borst v. Griffin, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 84; Marks’ Executors v. Russell, 40 Pa. St. 372, 373; Clink v. Russell, 58 Mich. 242, 243, 25 N. W. 175; Kinney v. Heuring, 42 Ind. App. 263, 85 N. E. 369.

Whether or not the rule is subject to limitation where periods prescribed by statute for the creation or determination of rights are concerned, we have no occasion to inquire. Those limitations would not in any event extend to include mere regulations of court procedure..

Demurrer overruled, answer held sufficient, and plea in abatement overruled.

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

Related

Brennan v. Town of Fairfield
768 A.2d 433 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2001)
Schumacher Forelle v. Crystal, No. Cv-93-0522937s (Aug. 12, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 7727 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Evergreen Cooperative, Inc. v. Michel
418 A.2d 99 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1980)
Carter v. Commissioner of Social Services
418 A.2d 931 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1979)
Lamberti v. City of Stamford
40 A.2d 190 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1944)
Austin, Nichols Co., Inc. v. Gilman
123 A. 32 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1923)
Alderman Bros. Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co.
99 A. 1040 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 A. 50, 90 Conn. 713, 1916 Conn. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sommers-v-adelman-conn-1916.