Farnham v. Lewis
| Citation | 83 Conn. 134,75 A. 625 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 15 March 1910 |
| Parties | FARNHAM v. LEWIS. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.
Action by Charles T. Farnham against Charles W. Lewis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Appeal dismissed.
In this court the plaintiff (appellee) filed a plea in abatement. The appellant (defendant) made a motion to amend his appeal, and also answered the plea in abatement to which answer the appellee demurred. Demurrer sustained, the motion to amend denied, and the appeal dismissed.
Smith & Mutm, for appellant. Warner & Landon and Walter Holcomb, for appellee.
Howard F. Landon, in support of the plea in abatement. Wellington B. Smith and Frank B. Munn, in opposition to the plea in abatement.
The plaintiff pleads in abatement upon the ground that the appeal was taken to the March term of this court instead of the January term, 1910. Gen. St. § 788, Pub. Acts 1905, c. 112, provides that parties aggrieved may appeal to the Supreme Court of Errors next to be held after the filing of the appeal. The statutes (Revision of 1902, § 480) provide that terms of the Supreme Court of Errors shall be annually held "in the First judicial district composed of Hartford, Tolland, Windham, Litchfield and Middlesex counties, at Hartford, on the first Tuesdays of January, March, May and October." The appeal was filed January 3, 1910, and made returnable to the first Tuesday of March, 3910. By taking judicial notice of the coincidence of the days of the week with the days of the month it appears that the first Tuesday of January, 1910, was the fourth day of that month. It needs no argument to show that the term of the Supreme Court of Errors commencing on the first Tuesday of March. 1910, was not the next Supreme Court after the filing of the appeal upon Monday, January 3d. It does not matter that the appeal was filed upon the 3d day of January, and that the next term of the Supreme Court was upon the following day. There is no difference in principle between an appeal filed one day before the next Supreme Court and one fried a much longer time before the return day. The language of the statute leaves no chance for discretion as is given in the return, of a writ to the superior court. The statute plainly directs that the appeal should be taken to the next Supreme Court of Errors; it cannot be taken to a later one. Pitkin v. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co., 67 Conn. 19, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Caissie
...Court] shall have the same powers and duties as clerks of said court.' See State v. McGee, 80 Conn. 614, 619, 69 A. 1059; Farnham v. Lewis, 83 Conn. 134, 136, 75 A. 625. Moreover, we are permitted to take judicial notice of the fact that Frank J. Bukowski was the assistant clerk in circuit ......
-
New Haven Loan Co. v. Affinito
...remedy for an irregularity in taking an appeal to the wrong term of court. State v. Caplan, 85 Conn. 618, 621, 84 A. 280; Farnham v. Lewis, 83 Conn. 134, 136, 75 A. 625; Murphy v. Elms Hotel, 104 Conn. 351, 354, 133 106. The demurrer to the plea in abatement was properly overruled. It appea......
-
Murphy v. Elms Hotel
... ... 376, and for the irregularity in taking 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. 577 ... ...
-
Flewellyn v. Hempstead
...a trial court may take judicial notice of the coincidence of the days of the week with the days of the month; Farnham v. Lewis, 83 Conn. 134, 135, 75 A. 625 (1910); the trial court here was not asked to do so and had no reason to do so, sua sponte. It was entitled to rely on the undisputed ......