Lord v. Russell
| Decision Date | 19 February 1894 |
| Citation | 29 A. 242,64 Conn. 86 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | LORD v. RUSSELL. |
Appeal from city court of New Haven.
Action by Annis J. Lord against Frank R. Russell on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The complaint alleged that on May 29, 1880, the defendant, by his note, promised to pay to the order of Annis J. Lord $600, six months after date, at the office of Henry E. Pardee, New Haven; value received. A motion to require plaintiff to set out the note being sustained, plaintiff amended her complaint by setting it out Defendant demurred to the complaint, as amended, because it did not aver the execution and delivery of the note, and the demurrer was overruled.
Jason P. Thompson, for appellant. John F. Wynne, for appellee.
We think there was no error. The note itself, being made a part of the complaint, showed on its face that it had been executed by the defendant The form is the same as that used in the practice act (form 212). The averment that the note was the property of the plaintiff implied a delivery to her. It is a rule of pleading that there need be no direct allegation of a fact which otherwise sufficiently appears, nor of a fact necessarily implied from the other averments. 1 Chit PI. 225; Bliss, Code PI. § 176. The delivery, even of a deed, although essential to its validity, need not be averred in pleading. 1 Chit. PL 365; New Conn. Civ. Off. p. 13; Prindle v. Caruthers, 15 N. Y. 425; Keteltas v. Myers, 19 N. Y. 231; Bank v. Wads worth, 24 N. Y. 547. A court ought not to misunderstand or refuse to comprehend the ordinary import of the words used, nor the meaning of the facts alleged. Colburn v. Tolles, 13 Conn. 524; Draper v. Moriarty, 45 Conn. 476. There is no error in the judgment appealed from. The other judges concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wachtel v. Rosol
...Construction Co. v. Housing Authority, 144 Conn. 187, 193, 128 A.2d 540; Hardy v. Scott, 127 Conn. 722, 723, 19 A.2d 420; Lord v. Russell, 64 Conn. 86, 87, 29 A. 242. The question, then, is whether the plaintiff has alleged facts from which it can be inferred that the sandwich 'was expected......
-
Wexler Const. Co. v. Housing Authority of Town of Norwich
...Warneke v. Preissner, 103 Conn. 503, 505, 131 A. 25; Brockett v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 73 Conn. 428, 434, 47 A. 763; Lord v. Russell, 64 Conn. 86, 87, 29 A. 242. It follows that the plaintiff, by necessary implication, alleged that it directed Candor to perform its part of the extra work.......
-
Warneke v. Preissner
...foreclosure was to be determined by the law of that state, and what is necessarily implied need not be expressly alleged. Lord v. Russell, 64 Conn. 86, 29 A. 242; Brockett v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 73 Conn. 434, 47 A. 763. By the terms of the General Statutes, § § 5726, 5727, our courts ar......
-
Warneke v. Preissner
...foreclosure was to be determined by the law of that state, and what is necessarily implied need not be expressly alleged. Lord v. Russell, 64 Conn. 86, 29 A. 242; Brockett v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 73 Conn. 428, 434, 47 A. 763. By the terms of the General Statutes, §§ 5726, 5727, our court......