Cramer v. Reeb
| Decision Date | 31 October 1915 |
| Citation | 89 Conn. 667,96 A. 154 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | CRAMER v. REEB. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Action by Charles W. Cramer against Joseph Reeb. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed, and in this court plaintiff filed a motion to erase and a plea in abatement. To defendant's answer to plea in abatement plaintiff demurred. Motion to erase denied, and demurrer to answer sustained.
Bertrand E. Spencer, of Middletown, in support of the plea in abatement. Daniel J. Donahoe, of Middletown, in opposition to the plea in abatement.
The appellee pleaded in abatement that after the finding was filed the defendant filed his written motion to correct the same, and the judge granted the motion in part, and in part denied it, and thereafter the finding was refiled, and counsel notified, and that the appeal was filed more than ten days after such refiling and notification. In his answer the defendant pleads as new matter that he duly excepted to the refusal of the court to find as requested, and at the sug- gestion of the court filed a duly certified copy of the evidence, which the judge on July 6, 1915, filed and made a part of the record, and that thereafter, on July 13, 1915, the defendant took his appeal. So that, as he alleges, the finding was actually filed July 6, 1915. The plaintiff demurred to this answer because it did not appear: (1) That the appeal was filed within ten days after the filing of the finding or after notification to counsel; (2) that the exception filed by the defendant was authorized by statute; and (3) that the certified copy of all the evidence was any part of the finding or necessary to the filing of the appeal.
The defendant claims his appeal was pursued under General Statutes, § 797, and that the certification of the evidence by the judge was an extension of the time for filing such evidence. The defendant is very plainly in error; his attempt to correct the finding was begun under General Statutes, § 795, and, so far as the record shows, this method has never been departed from.
A finding of facts was necessary in this case; hence the appeal must, under General Statutes, § 792, have been filed within ten days after notification to the parties of the refiling of the finding upon the decision of the motion to correct.
Under General Statutes, § 791, the judge may, for due cause shown, extend the time for filing such appeal. It does not appear that the judge in this case extended the time for filing the appeal, nor was he requested so to do. His authority in this respect is limited by, and cannot extend beyond, the statutory authority. Etchells v. Wainwright, 76 Conn. 534, 538, 57 Atl. 121.
Therefore the period in which to take this appeal expired ten days after the notification to counsel of the refiling of the finding. Wake v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bowling
...534, 538, 57 A. 121, 122; see Connecticut Mortgage & Title Guaranty Co. v. DiFrancesco, 112 Conn. 673, 675, 151 A. 491; Cramer v. Reeb, 89 Conn. 667, 669, 96 A. 154. 'The courts have uniformly held that the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional.' Uni......
-
Murphy v. Elms Hotel
...appeal to the wrong term of court, State v. Caplan, 84 A. 280, 85 Conn. 618; Farnham v. Lewis, 75* A. 625, 83 Conn. 134; Cramer v. Reeb, 96 A. 154, 89 Conn. 667; Forbes v. Town of Orange, 80 A. 710, 84 Conn. The motion to dismiss an appeal is an appropriate remedy where the court is without......
-
Murphy v. Elms Hotel
...the appeal to the wrong term of court, State v. Caplan, 84 A. 280, 85 Conn. 618; Farnham v. Lewis, 75 A. 625, 83 Conn. 134; Cramer v. Reeb, 96 A. 154, 89 Conn. 667; Forbes v. Town of Orange, 80 A. 710, 84 Conn. The motion to dismiss an appeal is an appropriate remedy where the court is with......
-
La Croix v. Donovan
... ... [97 ... Conn. 416] The authority of the trial judge is limited by, ... and cannot extend beyond, the statutory authority. Cramer ... v. Reeb, 89 Conn. 669, 96 A. 154 ... Under ... the construction which we have given General Statutes, § ... 5824, the trial judge ... ...