Chipman v. City of Waterbury
| Decision Date | 15 December 1890 |
| Citation | 59 Conn. 496,22 A. 289 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHIPMAN v. CITY OF WATERBURY. |
Error from superior court, New Haven county.
Action by Mary A. Chipman against the citv of Waterbury.
J. O'Neill and G. H. Cowell, for plaintiff.
G. E. Terry, for defendant.
This is a writ of error from a judgment of the superior court in New Haven county, sitting at Waterbury, brought to the supreme court of errors in Hartford in and for the first judicial district. The complaint was duly served, and was returned on the fir3t Tuesday of October, 1890, when the parties appeared, but no plea or answer was made. By agreement the case was heard at Bridgeport, briefs being submitted on the merits and as though the case stood on an answer averring "nothing erroneous." The case must be erased from the docket. The supreme court of errors in the first judicial district has no jurisdiction to hear a writ of error from a judgment of the superior court in New Haven county, that county being in the third judicial district. The statute (Gen. St. § 1145) provides that "writs of error for error in matters of law only may be brought from the judgment and decrees of the superior court ** * to the supreme court of errors in the judicial district or county where the judgments are rendered or the decrees passed. "This is the only authority the court of errors has to hear and determine any writ of error. A "writ of error" is defined by Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 409, to be "a commission by which the judges of one court are authorized to examine a record upon which a judgment was given in another court, and on such an examination to affirm or reverse the same according to law." This definition involves what would perhaps be clear enough without it, that one court never has the power to pronounce the judgment of any other court to be erroneous except it is authorized so to do by some express law to that effect. Tidd, Pr. 1051. See, also, 1 Swift, Dig. 690, where it is said that the mode of issuing writs of error is regulated by statute, and that the writ must lie brought in the county where the original action was tried. When a court has no jurisdiction of the cause, it is not in the power of the parties to confer jurisdiction by waiving all objection. That could not be done by an agreement. Grumon v. Raymond, 1 Conn. 44; Hart v. Granger, Id. 169; Ives v. Finch, 22 Conn. 106; Sears v. Terry, 26 Conn. 280; Fowler v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redding Life Care, LLC v. Town of Redding, SC 20054
...on which a judgment was given in another court, and affirm or reverse that judgment according to law"); see also Chipman v. Waterbury , 59 Conn. 496, 497, 22 A. 289 (1890) (same).Additionally, although our rules of practice may use the term "appeal" to refer to appeals by parties from final......
-
Simms v. Warden
...v. Ayala, 222 Conn. 331, 338-41, 610 A.2d 1162 (1992); State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 30, 463 A.2d 566 (1983); Chipman v. Waterbury, 59 Conn. 496, 497, 22 A. 289 (1890). The central issue before us, therefore, is whether § 52-273 confers jurisdiction on this court to review the disposition ......
-
State v. Assuntino
...v. Carroll, 48 Conn. 300 (absent statutory authority, the Superior Court has no jurisdiction of writ from a city court); Chipman v. Waterbury, 59 Conn. 496, 22 A. 289 (writ requires statutory authorization); Brown v. Cray, 88 Conn. 141, 89 A. 1123 (our writ is Faced with confusion in our ow......
-
State ex rel. St. Louis Dressed Beef & Provision Co. v. Nixon
... ... appealed from the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, and ... relator, on the authority of that case, refrains from further ... 138 Mo. 449; Gordon v. Gray, 19 Colo. 167; ... Kansas City v. Zahner, 138 Mo. 454; Chipman v ... Waterbury, 59 Conn. 496; Descalso v. San Francisco ... Court, 60 Cal. 296; Bailey v ... ...