Amato v. Campano
| Decision Date | 05 May 1954 |
| Citation | 105 A.2d 185,141 Conn. 247 |
| Parties | AMATO v. CAMPANO et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Nelson Harris, New Haven, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
This is a writ of error brought to this court from the City Court of New Haven. The defendants in error, hereinafter referred to as the landlords, are brothers and sisters, five in number. They own, by virtue of a certificate of distribution, the real estate known as 256-258 Wallace Street in New Haven. The premises consist of a store on the first floor and two apartments on the second floor. One of these apartments has been occupied for many years by the plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, on a month-to-month tenancy that started before the landlords became the owners. The established rent for the apartment is $22.50 a month. A summary process action was started against the tenant by writ and complaint dated March 17, 1953, and made returnable to the City Court of New Haven on the 14th day of April, 1953. The process was signed by John M. Chapnick. It was not signed in terms by him as a commissioner of the Superior Court but as the attorney for the plaintiffs. The landlords had applied to the office of rent stabilization in New Haven for a certificate relating to eviction on the ground that one of them, Stephen Campano, sought to occupy the premises himself. The certificate was duly issued, a notice to quit was served, and the summary process action was brought. The City Court of New Haven, after a trial, found the issues for the landlords and entered judgment that they recover immediate possession of the premises. The tenant filed a bill of exceptions, incorporating therein his claims of law.
This writ is brought under § 8015 of the General Statutes. We are concerned only with errors in matters of law. The bill of exceptions, which was allowed, serves the function of a finding on appeal. Kovner v. Dubin, 104 Conn. 112, 117, 132 A. 473. The questions which are raised by the tenant are: (1) Was the purported notice to quit which was served on him a duplicate of the one produced in court? (2) When it appeared that there were five owners of the property, was a notice that was subscribed in the name of one owner only, followed by the words 'and others,' a compliance with the statute relating to summary process? (3) Was it error for the City Court not to dismiss the action of summary process when it was called to the court's attention that the writ did not show on its face that the person signing it was a commissioner of the Superior Court?
The trial court's conclusions as to the notice to quit is that it complied with the statute. General Statutes § 8274. There was a slight discrepancy between the notice produced in court and the duplicate. The one served on the tenant lacked the words 'His Attorney' after the signature 'John M. Chapnick.' It also lacked further information as to Chapnick's identity and office address which appeared on the notice produced in court. Otherwise the notice are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffiths, Application of
...may, within the state, sign writs, issue subpoenas, take recognizances and administer oaths. General Statutes § 51-85; Amato v. Campano, 141 Conn. 247, 250, 105 A.2d 185. Mesne process in civil actions consists of a writ of summons or attachment which 'shall be signed by a commissioner of t......
-
Baker v. Baker
...of jurisdiction at that point by filing a general appearance. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 144 Conn. 725, 729, 137 A.2d 752; Amato v. Campano, 141 Conn. 247, 250, 105 A.2d 185; Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 684, 169 A. 58. The defendant's second jurisdictional argument, that the amendment to th......
-
Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Costello
...have waived any right to object, even if the procedure followed by the plaintiff should be deemed to be insufficient. Amato v. Campano, 141 Conn. 247, 105 A.2d 185. To require that the plaintiff give a ten-day written notice that it intends to ask the court to appoint a committee, rather th......
-
Johnson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Branford
...or otherwise, the defendant enters a general appearance, he will be deemed to have waived any defect of jurisdiction. Amato v. Campano, 141 Conn. 247, 250, 105 A.2d 185; Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 684, 169 A. A general appearance is a consent to the jurisdiction of the court and a waive......