Hickey v. Slattery

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtMALTBIE, J.
Citation131 A. 558,103 Conn. 716
PartiesHICKEY v. SLATTERY.
Decision Date08 January 1926

131 A. 558

103 Conn. 716

HICKEY
v.
SLATTERY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 8, 1926


Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John R. Booth, Judge.

Action by Francis F. Hickey against Morris D. Slattery for malpractice. Verdict for plaintiff, who appeals from a grant of the motion to set verdict aside. No error. [131 A. 559]

Charles S. Hamilton, of New Haven, for appellant.

Harrison T. Sheldon and William B. Gumbart, both of New Haven, for appellee.

MALTBIE, J.

This is an appeal from the granting of a motion to set aside a verdict recovered by the [103 Conn. 718] plaintiff. The motion states three grounds, that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence, that it was excessive, and that the statute of limitations had run against the cause of action. The trial court granted the motion upon the third ground, and the plaintiff appealed. He has, however, failed to have the evidence made a part of the record, and therefore his appeal has no proper standing in court. McCann v. McGuire, 83 Conn. 445, 76 A. 1003. It is true that the substantial matter argued before us was as to the application in this case of the statute of limitation in question, and we might perhaps find from their briefs and arguments that counsel on both sides are in agreement that this action was not brought within the period prescribed by that statute, still we could give no decision overruling the trial court. The defendant insists that, aside from the statute, the jury's finding that he was liable to the plaintiff could not be supported upon the evidence in the case, and that claim we cannot review in the absence of the evidence; yet, if the defendant's claim in this respect is sound, the action of the trial court in setting aside the verdict would have to be sustained, whether or not he came to an improper conclusion as to the applicability of the statute. Fitch v. Hartford, 92 Conn. 365, 102 A. 768. We could in no event find error in the action of the trial court in setting aside the verdict in the absence of the evidence. The result of its decision is, however, to place the action in the way of a retrial. At that trial the question as to the applicability of the statute of limitation in question will of necessity arise, and the parties have fully argued it before us. We feel constrained, therefore, in the interest of speedy justice, to consider it.

The plaintiff is suing the defendant, a surgeon, for pain, suffering,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 17, 1947
    ...is not a complete defense. The trial court erroneously held that it was. We have not overlooked our decisions in Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 131 A. 558, and Jakiela v. Ellison, 114 Conn. 731, 732, 159 A. 657, and in so far as in them we reached conclusions not in harmony with what we......
  • Common School District No. 18 v. Twin Falls Bank and Trust Co., 5860
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 24, 1932
    ...v. Mynott, 83 Ark. 6, 102 S.W. 380; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Sweet, 63 Ark. 563, 40 S.W. 463. CONNECTICUT: Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 131 A. 558. GEORGIA: Patterson v. Augusta & S. Ry. Co., 94 Ga. 140, 21 S.E. 283. ILLINOIS: Keirsey v. McNeemer, 197 Ill.App. 173. (In conflic......
  • Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., No. 130968
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • May 6, 1963
    ...adoption of our Practice Act, their phraseology was changed, there was no intent to alter their scope in any way.' Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719, 131 A. 558, 'In Hickey v. Slattery, * * * [supra] 103 Conn. 716, 719, 131 A. 558, we pointed out that our ancient statutes of limitation......
  • Stowe v. Smith
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 12, 1981
    ...v. Sinoway, 135 Conn. 424, 425, 426, 65 A.2d 473 (1949); Dean v. Hershowitz, 119 Conn. 398, 406, 177 A. 262 (1935); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719, 131 A. 558 (1926), [184 Conn. 200] overruled on other grounds, Hitchcock v. New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259, 56 A.2d 655 (1947)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 17, 1947
    ...is not a complete defense. The trial court erroneously held that it was. We have not overlooked our decisions in Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 131 A. 558, and Jakiela v. Ellison, 114 Conn. 731, 732, 159 A. 657, and in so far as in them we reached conclusions not in harmony with what we......
  • Common School District No. 18 v. Twin Falls Bank and Trust Co., 5860
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 24, 1932
    ...v. Mynott, 83 Ark. 6, 102 S.W. 380; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Sweet, 63 Ark. 563, 40 S.W. 463. CONNECTICUT: Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 131 A. 558. GEORGIA: Patterson v. Augusta & S. Ry. Co., 94 Ga. 140, 21 S.E. 283. ILLINOIS: Keirsey v. McNeemer, 197 Ill.App. 173. (In conflic......
  • Skidmore, Owings and Merrill v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., No. 130968
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • May 6, 1963
    ...adoption of our Practice Act, their phraseology was changed, there was no intent to alter their scope in any way.' Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719, 131 A. 558, 'In Hickey v. Slattery, * * * [supra] 103 Conn. 716, 719, 131 A. 558, we pointed out that our ancient statutes of limitation......
  • Stowe v. Smith
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 12, 1981
    ...v. Sinoway, 135 Conn. 424, 425, 426, 65 A.2d 473 (1949); Dean v. Hershowitz, 119 Conn. 398, 406, 177 A. 262 (1935); Hickey v. Slattery, 103 Conn. 716, 719, 131 A. 558 (1926), [184 Conn. 200] overruled on other grounds, Hitchcock v. New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 259, 56 A.2d 655 (1947)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT