Sisk v. Meagher
| Decision Date | 20 July 1909 |
| Citation | 73 A. 785,82 Conn. 376 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SISK v. MEAGHER. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County.
Action by James Sisk against Bridget Meagher. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Heard on plea in abatement and motion to erase the appeal. Plea in abatement sustained, and motion to erase denied.
William W. Stoddard, for appellant.
James P. Pigott, for appellee.
The plaintiff filed in this court a plea in abatement and a motion to erase an appeal, both for the reasons that the defendant had not followed the requirements of the General Statutes relating to appeals. The following material facts are conceded: This case was tried to the court, and decided in favor of the plaintiff July 18, 1908, when the judge filed his written memorandum of decision. Notice of an appeal was filed by the defendant July 20, 1908. January 13. 1909, the judgment filed, dated as of July 18, 1908. was prepared by the judge and filed with the clerk. Afterwards, and upon January 13, 1909, the defendant gave another notice of an appeal. On January 19, 1909, the defendant filed her request for a finding and a draft finding, and attempted to complete her appeal upon a judgment rendered January 13, 1909. When the court filed its memorandum of decision July 18, 1008, that was the judgment of the court, which fixed the date for an appeal. Sturdevant v. Stanton, 47 Conn. 581; Goldreyer v. Cronin, 76 Conn. 115, 55 Atl. 594; Bulkeley's Appeal, 76 Conn. 457, 57 Atl. 112. The preparation of the judgment file was a matter of subsequent clerical action. Bulkeley's Appeal, supra. By the provisions of the Public Acts of 1905 the two weeks in which the written request for a finding must be filed expired September 14, 1908. At no time was there a request for an extension of time, nor was any granted in reference to the taking of an appeal. It is apparent that the defendant has not complied with the requirements essential to the validity of an appeal. This the defendant concedes, except as she contends that the judgment file entered upon January 13, 1909, is materially different from the memorandum of decision dated July 18, 1908, so that there was in effect a judgment rendered at that time which became the judgment in the ease. If such a difference exists, the defendant's remedy is to be found in proceedings for the correction of the judgment file to make it correctly express the judgment. Bulkeley's Appeal, 76...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mobley, 6-337571
... ... Bulkeley's Appeal, 76 Conn. 454, 457, 57 Atl. 112 [1904]; Sisk v. Meagher, 82 Conn. 376, 73 Atl. 785 [1909]; Hull v. Thoms, 82 Conn. 386, 391, 73 Atl. 793 [1909]; Brown v. Cray, 88 Conn. 141, 146, 89 Atl. 1123 ... ...
-
Downs v. Horton
...Instrument Law, pp. 1, 5; 8 C. J., sec. 1291, p. 983; German Am. Bank v. Lewis, 63 So. 743; Fisk Rubber Co. v. Parker, 170 P. 581; Sisk v. Meager, 73 A. 785; v. National Bank, 126 S.W. 114; Metropolitan Co. v. Folden, 180 S.W. 985; German Am. Bank v. Lewis, 66 So. 509. Hiett & Scott and Ros......
-
State v. Grimes
...conclusive as to (of) its contents (unless or) until corrected.' Holtz v. Riddell, 101 Conn. 416, 421, 126 A. 333, 335; Sisk v. Meagher, 82 Conn. 376, 377, 73 A. 785; Varanelli v. Luddy, 130 Conn. 74, 78, 32 A.2d 61; see s.c., 134 Conn. 191, 56 A.2d 164. Thus, even if the rule enunciated in......
-
Varanelli v. Luddy.
...217; and is conclusive of its contents unless or until corrected, Holtz v. Riddell, 101 Conn. 416, 421, 126 A. 333; Sisk v. Meagher, 82 Conn. 376, 377, 73 A. 785. If there is a judicial error in the record, it may be corrected upon motion and hearing at the term the judgment was rendered, b......