Dorus v. Lyon
| Decision Date | 06 July 1917 |
| Citation | 92 Conn. 55,101 A. 490 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DORUS v. LYON. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Frank L. Wilder, Acting Judge.
Action by James H. Dorus against Florence G. Lyon, executrix of Charles H. Lyon, deceased. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.
The plaintiff's cause of action accrued March 9, 1892, against Charles H. Lyon, then of Bridgeport, and this action was not brought against his executrix until December, 1915. To a plea of the statute of limitations the plaintiff replied that Lyon removed from the state of Connecticut in 1892, and continued to reside out of the state until his death in April, 1915. The reply was traversed, and the finding on that point is that Lyon and his wife took an apartment in New York City in 1892, and removed from the state, and were without the state until his death, except that from 1892 until the death of his mother in 1906 Lyon continued to keep a residence at his mother's house in Bridgeport, where for a considerable part of each year he spent three days a week. Also that Lyon's name was on the voting list of the city of Bridgeport until his death, that he sometimes voted there, and that it was his usual custom to spend Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays of each week at his mother's house, where he had a room, except those portions of the year when he was away from Bridgeport on some trip or vacation. There are other findings not inconsistent with the above which, in the view we take of the case, need not be repeated.
William H. Comley, Jr., and Charles A. Hopwood, both of Bridgeport, for appellant. W. Parker Seeley, of Bridgeport, for appellee.
BEACH, J. (after stating the facts as above). The controlling question is whether Lyon was "without the state," within the meaning of General Statutes, § 1125, from 1892 to 1906, so that the statute of limitations did not run against the plaintiff's cause of action during that period. If it did, the plea was good. It seems clear that the finding concludes the point against the plaintiffs contention. The finding is that Lyon was without the state except as therein stated; but the exceptions nullify the affirmation.
In Sage v. Hawley, 16 Conn. 106, 41 Am. Dec. 128, we held that the proviso as to absence from the state did not refer to temporary absences, but was intended to preserve the plaintiff's right of action during a period when, by reason of the defendant's absence, it was impossible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mejias v. Sebastian, No. FA98-0116648 (CT 12/1/2004)
...will be valid if made in either of the usual places of abode." Clegg v. Bishop, 105 Conn. 564, 570, 136 A. 102 (1927); Dorus v. Lyon, 92 Conn. 55, 101 A. 490 (1917); Capitol Light & Supply Co. v. Gunning Electric Co., 24 Conn.Sup. 324, 326, 190 A.2d 495 The defendant was cited to appear on ......
-
Gerena v. Korb
...to commence an action in personam against the defendant.” Venables v. Bell, 941 F.Supp. 26, 27 (D.Conn.1996) (quoting Dorus v. Lyon, 92 Conn. 55, 57, 101 A. 490 (1917)); see also Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P. v. Milazzo, 287 Conn. 379, 392-93, 949 A.2d 450, 457-58 (2008). Because Connect......
-
Smith v. Smith
...in personam judgment. Hurlbut v. Thomas, 55 Conn. 181, 182, 10 A. 556; see Clegg v. Bishop, 105 Conn. 564, 572, 136 A. 102; Dorus v. Lyon, 92 Conn. 55, 57, 101 A. 490; Stephenson, Conn.Civ.Proc. § 4(a). Abode service is only a step removed from manual service and serves the same duel functi......
-
Palmer v. Palmer, 3864.
...affidavit, which never refers to Charles's residence as such, but carefully refers only to "our family residence." In Dorus v. Lyon, 92 Conn. 55, 101 A. 490, it was held that one might have a residence for the purpose of service of process in this state, even though during the same period h......