Smith v. Hall
| Decision Date | 04 January 1899 |
| Citation | 42 A. 86,71 Conn. 427 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | SMITH v. HALL. |
Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.
Action by Mary E. Smith against Addison T. Hall to foreclose a judgment lien. There was an order dismissing a cross complaint, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The original judgment was rendered in 1897 by the superior court for Litchfield county, and (after a partial remittitur of the verdict had been entered) was for $3,167.22 and costs. See Smith v. Hall, 69 Conn. 651, 38 Atl. 386. The cross complaint stated these facts: The original action was one for breach of promise of marriage. One of the principal matters in controversy, as to the matter of damages, was the value of the real estate on which said lien was afterwards placed. The plaintiff offered evidence that it was worth $40,000. The jury, in their verdict, estimated it at that sum, and that the defendant, who owed some $15,000, was, therefore, worth $25,000. Since the trial, further evidence as to its value has been discovered and obtained, by repeated and persistent attempts to dispose of the same; and it has been found and shown, as matter of absolute certainty, that its value was much loss than $40,000. The plaintiff in the trial of said action claimed strongly that she should be allowed exemplary damages on account of the answer in said action affecting her reputation, which was filed about three months before the trial, and on account of the testimony of the defendant on said trial. One of the principal questions in said action was the sanity of the defendant. The plaintiff testified that she was a professional nurse; that she had taken care of and lived in the same house with defendant for years; and that he was never insane. The plaintiff also called a physician from Woodbury, where he had resided a considerable time, and whom he had consulted frequently, who testified to his sanity; and called business men who testified to the same effect The defendant's counsel in the trial of the case believed that he would not be able to testify connectedly and rationally, and that in all probability he would not be able to testify at all, and that his unbalanced mental condition would be evident to the jury upon his being offered as a witness; but the defendant surprised them upon the witness stand by a long course of testimony and cross-examination. Shortly after the trial the defendant was committed by the city court of New Haven to the hospital for the insane at Middletown, Conn. The physicians who have been in charge of the defendant there (Henry S. Noble and J. W. Duke) will testify that the defendant is clearly and incurably insane, and that his insanity must have continued for several years, and has been slowly increasing, and this evidence was not obtainable before the trial. The defendant, by reason of insanity, refused to allow his counsel, H. P. Hall, to employ assistance in preparing or trying the case, and would not assist or allow expense to be made in the preparation of his defense. The defendant has a wife, Hattie Robbins Hall, who was married to him in good faith in June, 1896, and who has a mother and two children, who, with defendant's wife, constitute the defendant's family. If this judgment is allowed to stand, it will take the whole of the defendant's property, and leave himself and his wife and family entirely without support, except as the same may be obtained from the state, or the town of New Haven, or the personal labor of his wife. Such a result was not intended by the jury, and said verdict would not have been given, if the actual facts of the case could have been made clear to them. The cross complaint was filed by a guardian ad litem previously appointed on the plaintiff's application, representing that the defendant was insane and without a conservator. The motion to dismiss was on the ground that it appeared on the face of the pleadings that the superior court for New Haven county had no jurisdiction to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Melahn
...A. 199 [ (1933) ];Dante v. Dante, 93 Conn. 160, 105 A. 353 [ (1919) ];Jarvis v. Martin, 77 Conn. 19, 58 A. 15 [ (1904) ];Smith v. Hall, 71 Conn. 427, 42 A. 86 [ (1899) ];Carrington v. Holabird, 17 Conn. 530, 537 [ (1846) ], 19 Conn. 83, 87 [ (1848) ]; General Statutes § 5701 [now § 52–270].......
-
Lowry v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.
...of the court in which the case was tried.” New Eng. Mortg., etc., Co. v. Collins, 115 Ga. 104, 41 S. E. 270. And we read in Smith v. Hall, 71 Conn. 427, 42 Atl. 86: “An application for such relief, based on matters of equitable cognizance, must be brought to the court which rendered the ori......
-
Cavallo v. Derby Sav. Bank
...565, 169 A. 199 [1933]; Dante v. Dante, 93 Conn. 160, 105 A. 353 [1919]; Jarvis v. Martin, 77 Conn. 19, 58 A. 15 [1904]; Smith v. Hall, 71 Conn. 427, 42 A. 86 [1899]; Carrington v. Holabird, 17 Conn. 530, 537 [1846], 19 Conn. 83, 87 [1846] ...." Hoey v. Investors' Mortgage & Guaranty Co., 1......
-
Norwalk & S. Norwalk Elec. Light Co. v. Common Council of City of S. Norwalk
... ... November 5, 1897. To Stephen S. Hatch, George S. Kendall, George S. Trowbridge, Venancio A. Scofield, Charles N. Smith, and William W. Comstock, councilmen of the city of South Norwalk, and Charles G. Bohannan, mayor of said city of South Norwalk, the common council ... ...