Ulmer v. City of New Haven

Connecticut Superior Court

Ulmer v. City of New Haven

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 218, 8 Conn. Supp. 218, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 79

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 14, 1940

DocketFile 56687

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 218 (Ulmer v. City of New Haven) 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

Ulmer v. City of New Haven, 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 218, 8 Conn. Supp. 218, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 79 (Colo. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

BOOTH, J.

The complaint as filed and amended sets forth in two counts purported causes of action against both defendants. On March 27, 1939, the defendant Carie G. Burgess •demurred to the first count, and on October 6, 1939 the court, Dickenson, J., sustained such demurrer, thereby in effect ruling ■that, as to this defendant, the first count sets forth no legal cause of action. This ruling thus became the law of the case and construed the complaint as setting forth one cause of action -against the defendant City of New Haven in the first count *219 not affecting the defendant Carie G. Burgess. Section 5512 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, which permits the union of several causes of action in one complaint, especially provides that such causes, so united, must, except in actions of foreclosure, affect all parties to the action. In view of the prior ruling before referred to, it appears that in its present state the complaint sets forth two separate and distinct causes of action neither of which affects both defendants, and consequently the actions are misjoined and properly demurrable for the reasons stated in the defendant Carie G. Burgess’ demurrer.

The demurrer is therefore sustained.

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

BOOTH, J.

The complaint as filed and amended sets forth in two counts purported causes of action against both defendants. On March 27, 1939, the defendant Carie G. Burgess •demurred to the first count, and on October 6, 1939 the court, Dickenson, J., sustained such demurrer, thereby in effect ruling ■that, as to this defendant, the first count sets forth no legal cause of action. This ruling thus became the law of the case and construed the complaint as setting forth one cause of action -against the defendant City of New Haven in the first count *219 not affecting the defendant Carie G. Burgess. Section 5512 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, which permits the union of several causes of action in one complaint, especially provides that such causes, so united, must, except in actions of foreclosure, affect all parties to the action. In view of the prior ruling before referred to, it appears that in its present state the complaint sets forth two separate and distinct causes of action neither of which affects both defendants, and consequently the actions are misjoined and properly demurrable for the reasons stated in the defendant Carie G. Burgess’ demurrer.

The demurrer is therefore sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 218, 8 Conn. Supp. 218, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ulmer-v-city-of-new-haven-connsuperct-1940.