Treloar v. Town of Farmington

Connecticut Superior Court

Treloar v. Town of Farmington

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 493, 5 Conn. Supp. 493, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 17

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 19, 1938

DocketFile #54002

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 493 (Treloar v. Town of Farmington) 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

Treloar v. Town of Farmington, 5 Conn. Super. Ct. 493, 5 Conn. Supp. 493, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 17 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BALDWIN, J.

The complaint is in two counts; the first count is based upon negligence, the second, which has been amended, is upon nuisance. The demurrer is addressed to both counts, but is not claimed as to the second count. It is, therefore, to be considered only as an attack upon the sufficiency of the notice to the defendant set forth in the first count.

This count sets forth a cause of action under section. 1420 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930. The notice is in writing; it includes the five essential elements: (a) the injuries; (b) a general description of the injuries; (c) the cause; (d) the time, and (e) the place thereof. The claimed insufficiency upon which the demurrer rests, is, because the notice is addressed to the Town Clerk of the defendant Town, naming her.

The allegation in paragraph 12 of this count of the complaint is as follows:

“On September 13, 1937, due notice according to the statute, was given by the plaintiff to the defendant in manner and form as follows, vis:”

and then follows a copy of the notice, addressed as herein-before described.

The statute does not prescribe the manner in which the notice shall be addressed. It does provide to whom it should be given and the essentials of the notice. The allegations of the complaint are that “due notice according to the statute, was given ... to the defendant,” etc. Since the notice, as set forth, includes the essentials, if it was given to the authority designated by the statute, although improperly addressed, it would serve the requirement of the statute. The question raised presents a question of fact that cannot be determined upon demurrer.

The demurrer is therefore overruled.

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

BALDWIN, J.

The complaint is in two counts; the first count is based upon negligence, the second, which has been amended, is upon nuisance. The demurrer is addressed to both counts, but is not claimed as to the second count. It is, therefore, to be considered only as an attack upon the sufficiency of the notice to the defendant set forth in the first count.

This count sets forth a cause of action under section. 1420 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930. The notice is in writing; it includes the five essential elements: (a) the injuries; (b) a general description of the injuries; (c) the cause; (d) the time, and (e) the place thereof. The claimed insufficiency upon which the demurrer rests, is, because the notice is addressed to the Town Clerk of the defendant Town, naming her.

The allegation in paragraph 12 of this count of the complaint is as follows:

“On September 13, 1937, due notice according to the statute, was given by the plaintiff to the defendant in manner and form as follows, vis:”

and then follows a copy of the notice, addressed as herein-before described.

The statute does not prescribe the manner in which the notice shall be addressed. It does provide to whom it should be given and the essentials of the notice. The allegations of the complaint are that “due notice according to the statute, was given ... to the defendant,” etc. Since the notice, as set forth, includes the essentials, if it was given to the authority designated by the statute, although improperly addressed, it would serve the requirement of the statute. The question raised presents a question of fact that cannot be determined upon demurrer.

The demurrer is therefore overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Conn. Super. Ct. 493, 5 Conn. Supp. 493, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 17, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treloar-v-town-of-farmington-connsuperct-1938.