Morehouse v. Throckmorton

• Decision Date: 28 November 1899
• Citation: 72 Conn. 449,44 A. 747
• Parties: MOREHOUSE v. THROCKMORTON.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

44 A. 747

72 Conn. 449

MOREHOUSE

v. THROCKMORTON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Nov. 28, 1899.

Appeal from superior court, Fairfield county; Ralph Wheeler, Judge.

Action by Annie D. Morehouse, administratrix of the estate of John L. Morehouse, deceased, against John I. Throckmorton and wife, to recover for professional services, and for money paid, laid out, and expended. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendant John I. Throckmorton for alleged error of the court in overruling his motion in arrest of judgment because of the claimed insufficiency of the complaint Affirmed.

The complaint is as follows: "(1) On or about January 1, 1896, the defendant owed John L. Morehouse, then in full life, $2,000, for money paid, laid out, and expended for the defendant, and for work performed and professional services rendered to the said defendant, by the said John L. Morehouse. 2) On or about January 1, 1896, the said John L. Morehouse died, leaving no last will and testament. (3) On the 19th day of January, 1898, the plaintiff was appointed administratrix upon the estate of the said John L. Morehouse, and duly qualified as said administratrix. The plaintiff claims $3,500 damages." A bill of particulars was filed, which contains detailed charges for a lawyer's services extending over a period of about five years, amounting in the whole to $2,504.76, including consultations and correspondence with the defendant, and detailed credits for payments on account of such services extending over the first four years, showing the amount due and unpaid on January 1, 1895, of $1,858.65. The answer is as follows: "The defendant denies the truth of the matters contained in the plaintiff's complaint and bill of particulars, except the items of credit, which are admitted." After verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment for the following reasons: "(1) That the plaintiff's complaint and matters therein contained are insufficient in the law to warrant any judgment to be rendered thereon in favor of the plaintiff. 2) Because the complaint avers that on or about January 1, 1896, the defendant owed John L. Morehouse, then in full life, $2,000, and it does not aver that the same was due and unpaid, or that the same has not been paid." This motion was overruled by the court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff. The appeal assigns for error the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict for the reasons stated.

Curtis Thompson and James W. Thompson, for appellant.

John C. Chamberlain, for appellee.

HAMERSLEY, J. (after stating the facts). At common law the declaration must allege, not only facts sufficient to show a right of action in the plaintiff, but also facts sufficient to show a right to recover in the particular form of action selected, and must contain all allegations deemed necessary to a complete legal statement of a cause of action enforceable through that form. Many of the rules which had become settled under this system of pleading were rendered obsolete by the abolition of all forms of action. Now there is but one form of action (with certain statutory exceptions) to enforce any right, and it is only essential for a complaint or statement of claim to give "a plain and concise statement of the material facts" requisite to support any right in the plaintiff to have the relief demanded. Prac. Act, §§ 1, 9; Craft Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Quinnipiac Brewery Co., 63 Conn. 551, 564, 29 Atl. 76, 25 L. R. A. 856; Jacobs v. Holgenson, 70 Conn. 68, 72, 38 Atl. 914; Manufacturing Co. v. Lynch, 68 Conn. 459, 469, 36 Atl. 832. In the case at bar the allegations are to be found both in the complaint and in the bill of particulars, which is a part of or amendment to the complaint. Vila v. Weston, 33 Conn. 42, 47; Rules under Prac. Act, No. 11, § 1. They substantially, although informally and somewhat blindly, set forth: (1) That John L. Morehouse from February, 1890, to May, 1895, rendered the defendant services as specified, and of the value stated. 2) Said services were accepted by the defendant and in part paid for by the credits as stated. (3) Said Morehouse died January 1, 1896, and the defendant then owed him for said services the amount due and unpaid, to wit, $1,858.65. (4) On January 19, 1898, the plaintiff was...