Harrison v. Harrison
| Citation | 96 Conn. 568,114 A. 681 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 04 August 1921 |
| Parties | HARRISON v. HARRISON. |
Case Reserved from Superior Court, New Haven County; James H Webb, Judge.
Action by Charles W. Harrison against Fannie K. Harrison to recover damages for refusal to release an attachment upon personal property and to have the attachment declared void and discharged, brought to the superior court in New Haven county and reserved for the advice of this court. Cause remanded without advice.
Omar W. Platt, of Milford, for plaintiff.
Seymour C. Loomis, of New Haven, for defendant.
Section 71 prescribes as follows:
" Before any such question shall be reserved by any court, counsel shall file in said court a stipulation which shall clearly and fully state the question or questions upon which advice is desired; that their present determination by this court would be in the interest of simplicity, directness and economy in judicial action, the grounds of such allegation being particularly stated; that the question or questions are reasonably certain to enter into the final determination of the cause; and that the parties request that they be reserved for the advice of this court."
In their stipulation for this reservation, counsel have not stated any question upon which advice is desired, and have failed to comply in any particular with the requirements of this section of our rules. Therefore the superior court had no authority to reserve this cause, and could not confer jurisdiction on this court to give advice. Husted v. Mead, 58 Conn. 55, 66, 19 A. 333. Indeed the superior court does not state in the reservation that it reserves any question of law for the advice of this court; it asks only " whether on the agreed facts the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant." Only facts are presented for consideration. Such a reservation is not included within or intended by the provisions of section 70 of our rules, and will not be entertained.
If we look outside of the stipulation and the reservation themselves and into the whole record, we find that the only question of law which appears in this cause has already been decided by the superior court. By a demurrer to the amended complaint, the defendant raised the question whether an attachment made in a divorce proceeding, in which by final decree the defendant had been ordered to pay a fixed sum and in addition to pay weekly a part of his income to the divorced woman during her lifetime, remained in force after the payment of the fixed sum as security...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sul
...v. Hayes, supra; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. §§ 65, 66; see Kelly v. City of Waterbury, 96 Conn. 494, 496, 114 A. 530; Harrison v. Harrison, 96 Conn. 568, 571, 114 A. 681. The construction of § 8567, however, involves a matter of public interest and importance because of recent decisions of the......
-
Barr v. First Taxing Dist. of City of Norwalk
...fully developed. Burns v. Seymour, 141 Conn. 401, 406, 106 A.2d 759; Claffey v. Bergin, 121 Conn. 695, 697, 183 A. 16; Harrison v. Harrison, 96 Conn. 568, 570, 114 A. 681; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., pp. 288, 289. We see no assurance whatever that answers to the questions propounded would simp......
-
Wiegert v. Pequabuck Golf Club, Inc.
... ... Appleby, 136 Conn. 641, 643, 73 A.2d 819. Here, the question at issue should be decided by the trial court. Harrison v. Harrison, 96 Conn. 568, 570, 114 A. 681 ... We decline to answer the questions reserved ... No costs will be ... ...
-
Potter v. Appleby
...upon this court merely by reserving a question for our advice. Husted v. Mead, 58 Conn. 55, 66, 19 A. 233; see Harrison v. Harrison, 96 Conn. 568, 569, 114 A. 681. Questions of law may be reserved in all cases in which an appeal could lawfully be taken had a judgment been rendered therein. ......