Fine v. Wencke
| Decision Date | 07 November 1933 |
| Citation | 117 Conn. 683,169 A. 58 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | FINE v. WENCKE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Carl Foster, Judge.
Action by Henry R. Fine against George Wencke to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant's negligence. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
No error.
Adrian W. Maher, of Bridgeport, Martin E. Gormley, of Naugatuck, and Edward J. Maher, of Milford, for appellant.
William Dorkin, of Bridgeport, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident occurring in Connecticut. He is a resident of Massachusetts and the defendant is a resident of New York. The writ was made returnable and was returned to the superior court for Hartford county. Service was made upon the commissioner of motor vehicles as the agent of the defendant within the provisions of section 5473 of the General Statutes. The complaint claimed $5,000 damages. No property was attached in the action. The defendant entered a general appearance and contested the case upon the merits. He now appeals upon the ground that the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the action.
When the plaintiff came into this state and instituted his action here he brought within our jurisdiction the subject-matter of that action; his right to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by reason of the negligence of the defendant. Place v. Lyon, Kirby, 404; Vanbuskirk v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 14 Conn. 583 589; Hatch v. Spofford, 24 Conn. 432, 440; Artman v. Artman, 111 Conn. 124, 127, 149 A. 246; Barrell v. Benjamin. 15 Mass. 354. The Connecticut cases cited establish that our public policy is not adverse to our courts taking jurisdiction of actions between nonresidents brought here in good faith, when the court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and parties, if, indeed under the provision of the United States Constitution guaranteeing to the citizens of each state all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states, we might refuse to entertain such an action, Const. U.S. art. 4 § 2, and we find nothing in the terms of the statute authorizing service upon nonresidents operating motor vehicles in this state through the motor vehicle commissioner, or in kindred statutes, which discloses an intent on the part of the Legislature to restrict service in the way outlined to actions brought by persons domiciled in this state. Garon v. Poirier (N. H.) 164 A. 765; State ex rel. Rush v. Circuit Court, 209 Wis. 246 244 N.W. 766; Beach v. D. W. Perdue Co., Inc. (Del. Super.) 163...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Orsini
...matter jurisdiction, which cannot be conferred upon the court by the parties, must be distinguished from venue. Ibid.; Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 684, 169 A. 58 (1933); Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 77, 142 A. 473 (1928). Practice Book §§ 809 and 810 provide that a ......
-
State ex rel. Southern Ry. Co. v. Mayfield
... ... J ... Longyear Co., 210 Ala. 352, 98 So. 119. California: ... Leet v. Union Pac. R. Co., 25 Cal.2d 605, 155 P.2d ... 42. Connecticut: Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 169 ... A. 58. Georgia: L. & N. v. Meredith, 21 S.E.2d 101 ... Indiana: Levi v. Kaufman, 12 Ind.App. 347, 39 N.E ... ...
-
State ex rel. Southern Ry. Co. v. Mayfield, 41461.
...Co., 210 Ala. 352, 98 So. 119. California: Leet v. Union Pac. R. Co., 25 Cal. (2d) 605, 155 P. (2d) 42. Connecticut: Fine v. Wencke, 117 Conn. 683, 169 Atl. 58. Georgia: L. & N. v. Meredith, 21 S.E. (2d) 101. Indiana: Levi v. Kaufman, 12 Ind. App. 347, 39 N.E. 1045; Dodgem Corp. v. D.D. Mur......
-
Baker v. Baker
...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 the prayer for relief constituted a new cause of act......