Hazzard v. Gallucci
| Decision Date | 02 March 1915 |
| Citation | 93 A. 230,89 Conn. 196 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HAZZARD v. GALLUCCI. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Isaac Wolfe, Judge.
Action by Estella Hazzard against Germano Gallucci, alias Angelina Monento, brought to the court of common pleas for New Haven county, where defendant filed an answer and counterclaim, on which issue was joined. From a judgment of dismissal for want of jurisdiction rendered after a trial on the merits and a verdict for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Frederick M. Peasley, of Waterbury, for appellant. Louis M. Rosenbluth and Charles J. Martin, both of New Haven, for appellee.
The plaintiff and defendant were both residents of the town of Cheshire when this action was commenced. Cheshire is within the territorial jurisdiction of the district of Waterbury. This district is composed of towns situated in the counties of New Haven and Litchfield. Public Acts 1007, c. 13. The district court of Waterbury possesses jurisdiction over matters arising within this judicial district. For many years this court has had concurrent jurisdiction with the superior court of New Haven county over certain actions, and exclusive jurisdiction when the matter would otherwise have been within the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas for New Haven county. General Statutes, §§ 534, 535. In 1903 section 534 of the General Statutes was amended to read as follows:
"All civil actions for equitable relief only, wherein the matter in demand does not exceed five hundred dollars, all civil actions for legal relief only, wherein the matter in demand exceeds one hundred dollars but does not exceed five hundred dollars, and all actions for both equitable and legal relief, wherein the equitable relief demanded does not exceed five hundred dollars and the legal relief demanded exceeds one hundred dollars but does not exceed five hundred dollars, shall be brought to the court of common pleas, except in counties where there is no such court, and in such counties shall be brought to the superior court: Provided, that said actions which are within the territorial jurisdiction of the district court of Waterbury may be brought to that court or to the court of common pleas for Litchfield county." P. A. 1903, c. 136.
The plaintiff contended that the plain provisions of the act gave the court of common pleas for New Haven jurisdiction over her case. The trial court held otherwise and dismissed the action because it was without jurisdiction. The plaintiff's appeal, therefore, presents the question whether or not the court of common pleas for New Haven county had jurisdiction over cases where both plaintiff and defendant were residents of the town of Cheshire, in New Haven county. The solution of this question depends upon the meaning of the act of 1903.
The fundamental rule for the construction of statutes is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. This intention must be ascertained from this act itself, if the language is plain. But, when the language used is doubtful in meaning, the true meaning may be ascertained by considering it in the light of all its provisions, the object to be accomplished by its passage, its title, pre-existing legislation upon the same subject, and the other relevant circumstances.
"A statute is to be construed so as to carry out the intent of the Legislature, though such construction may seem contrary to the letter of the statute." Rector of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 12 Sup. Ct. 511, 36 L. Ed. 226; People v. Lacombe, 99 N. Y. 43, 1 N. E. 599; Brown's Appeal, 72 Conn. 148, 150, 44 Atl. 22, 49 L. R. A. 144.
The jurisdiction of the court of common pleas for New Haven county was strictly local. It had a limited jurisdiction as to parties, and it was restricted as to territory. Such courts can only exercise their powers in the cases and the manner clearly prescribed by the Legislature, and it is imperative that they should proceed in the manner directed by the Legislature. Sears v. Terry, 26 Conn. 273.
Section 534 of the General Statutes, amended by the act of 1903, contained this provision:
"Provided that said actions which are within the territorial jurisdiction of the district court of Waterbury shall be brought to that court."
The only change made in section 534 by the act of 1903 was in the paragraph just noticed, which was amended so that it reads as follows:
"Provided, that said actions which are within the territorial jurisdiction of the district court of Waterbury may be brought to that court or to the court of common pleas for Litchfield county."
It is clear that, before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hughes
...of the statute may be considered in determining the legislative intent; 'but it cannot enlarge or confer power; Hazzard v. Gallucci, 89 Conn. 196, 200, 93 A. 230; nor can it control the meaning of a statute when the legislative intent is clear from its text. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. Ora......
-
State v. Ryan
...meaning may be ascertained by considering it in the light of all of its provisions ... [as well as] its title...." Hazzard v. Gallucci, 89 Conn. 196, 198, 93 A. 230 (1915); see also Old Saybrook v. Public Utilities Commission, 100 Conn. 322, 328, 124 A. 33 (1924). We are persuaded that the ......
-
Hartford Elec. Light Co. v. Town of Wethersfield
...& Power Co. v. Sullivan, 150 Conn. 578, 581, 192 A.2d 545; Sullivan v. Town Council, 143 Conn. 280, 284, 121 A.2d 630; Hazzard v. Gallucci, 89 Conn. 196, 198, 93 A. 230. Recalling the rules, discussed above, which require strict construction of taxing statutes; Hartford Electric Light Co. v......
-
Royce v. Heneage
...Co., 130 Conn. 381, 384, 34 A.2d 636, even though such construction may seem contrary to the letter of the statute. Hazzard v. Gallucci, 89 Conn. 196, 198, 93 A. 230; Old Saybrook v. Public Utilities Commission, 100 Conn. 322, 328, 124 A. A review of the legislative history of the drainage ......