Zavras v. Beth David Synagogue

Connecticut Superior Court

Zavras v. Beth David Synagogue

198 A.2d 222, 25 Conn. Super. Ct. 148, 25 Conn. Supp. 148, 1963 Conn. Super. LEXIS 184

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedSeptember 17, 1963

DocketFile No. 5984

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.2d 222 (Zavras v. Beth David Synagogue) 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

Zavras v. Beth David Synagogue, 198 A.2d 222, 25 Conn. Super. Ct. 148, 25 Conn. Supp. 148, 1963 Conn. Super. LEXIS 184 (Colo. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Although a plea in abatement normally would be the proper pleading by which to attack irregularities in serving a writ as "facts which otherwise would not be apparent to the Court," as pointed out in Laraia v. Pilgard, 14 Conn. Sup. 431, cited by the plaintiff, the writ and complaint herein were not even filed in court until several weeks after the return day, making it impossible for the defendant to file such a plea within the time prescribed by § 82 of the 1951 Practice Book.

Perhaps some other form of motion would be preferable, but the language of the court in Jepsen v.Toni Co., 20 Conn. Sup. 287, 294, seems to indicate the propriety of a motion to quash under such circumstances.

The motion to quash is granted.

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

Although a plea in abatement normally would be the proper pleading by which to attack irregularities in serving a writ as "facts which otherwise would not be apparent to the Court," as pointed out in Laraia v. Pilgard, 14 Conn. Sup. 431, cited by the plaintiff, the writ and complaint herein were not even filed in court until several weeks after the return day, making it impossible for the defendant to file such a plea within the time prescribed by § 82 of the 1951 Practice Book.

Perhaps some other form of motion would be preferable, but the language of the court in Jepsen v.Toni Co., 20 Conn. Sup. 287, 294, seems to indicate the propriety of a motion to quash under such circumstances.

The motion to quash is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.2d 222, 25 Conn. Super. Ct. 148, 25 Conn. Supp. 148, 1963 Conn. Super. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zavras-v-beth-david-synagogue-connsuperct-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack