47 Conn. 19 (Conn. 1879), Deveau v. Skidmore

Citation:47 Conn. 19
Opinion Judge:Pardee, J.
Party Name:Theodore S. Deveau v. Philo P. Skidmore.
Attorney:G. Stoddard, for the plaintiff. R. E. DeForest, for the defendant.
Judge Panel:In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 19

47 Conn. 19 (Conn. 1879)

Theodore S. Deveau

v.

Philo P. Skidmore.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March, 1879

A writ in an action at law for damages is fatally defective if it contains no ad damnum clause.

And it does not suffice that the declaration shows that the plaintiff has sustained damage and furnishes the data for ascertaining the damage.

Such a case stricken from the docket as not showing any jurisdiction in the court.

Covenant broken, with counts for money paid, & c., brought to the Court of Common Pleas of Fairfield County. The writ contained no ad damnum clause, and the court ( Beers, J. ,) upon motion of the defendant ordered the case erased from the docket. The plaintiff filed a motion in error. The case is more fully stated in the opinion.

G. Stoddard, for the plaintiff.

R. E. DeForest, for the defendant.

Pardee, J.

The pleader sets forth in his declaration that the defendant conveyed a piece of land to the plaintiff by a deed in which he covenanted that the same was free from incumbrance, when in fact there were then upon it tax liens to remove which the plaintiff paid $277. Counts were added for $300 money had and received, money lent and advanced, & c.; but he omitted to insert the ad damnum clause. The writ was duly served, returned and entered upon the docket of the Court of Common Pleas, from which it was erased for want of jurisdiction apparent upon the record. The plaintiff filed a motion in error.

The rules of pleading require from a plaintiff, as a pre-requisite to a judgment in his behalf, an allegation that he has suffered damage, together with his estimate as to the extent thereof. Conceding that this declaration furnishes foundation for the inference that the plaintiff has been injured to the extent of the money paid out, yet the pleader has not averred such to be...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP