Souza v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Decision Date18 February 1964
Docket NumberNo. 119496,119496
Citation25 Conn.Supp. 174,199 A.2d 170
PartiesSinhorina SOUZA v. The GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC TEA COMPANY.
CourtConnecticut Superior Court

Louis Stein, Bridgeport, for plaintiff.

Pullman, Comley, Bradley & Reeves, Bridgeport, for defendant.

BARBER, Judge.

In this action based upon negligence, it affirmatively appears that the plaintiff's alleged injury was incurred on September 15, 1962. The officer's return shows service upon the secretary of the state of Connecticut on September 16, 1963. The defendant has interposed a special defense claiming that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations. In reply thereto, the plaintiff alleges that September 15, 1963, fell on Sunday and service was made upon the necessary of state on the next business day.

The defendant claims that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book, 1963, § 298. Affidavits and supporting papers have been filed showing that the defendant is a foreign corporation with warehouses, retail stores, one warehouse manager, store managers, one resident director and one resident vice president, all in this state; that the secretary of the state of Connecticut has been appointed its attorney upon whom process may be served; that Ella T. Grasso is the secretary of state with a usual place of abode in this state; and that James Daly is the deputy secretary of state with usual place of abode in this state.

The sole question which the court must determine is whether the defendant's special defense is well founded. The issue presented is one of law and proper for determination upon a motion for summary judgment. Practice Book 1963, § 303; Perri v. Cioffi, 141 Conn. 675, 680, 109 A.2d 355.

This is a negligence action and the one-year statute applies. General Statutes § 52-584. The plaintiff relies upon the rule that where the last day of a period within which an act may be done, which may not be done on Sunday, falls upon such day, performance may be made on the following day. Lamberti v. City of Stamford, 131 Conn. 396, 399, 40 A.2d 190; Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Gilman, 100 Conn. 81, 85, 123 A. 32. The defendant claims that service of process may be made upon a party before sunrise and after sunset on a Sunday. General Statutes § 52-71. The defendant further claims that service upon a foreign corporation may be made upon the resident attorney of such corporation appointed pursuant to General Statutes § 33-400 (formerly § 33-138) or, in the alternate, upon certain enumerated officers and agents as permitted by General Statutes § 52-57. The procedure to be followed when making service on the secretary of the state is set forth in General Statutes § 33-411(a). It is provided that service be made by leaving the process at the office of the secretary or by depositing the same in the United States mails addressed to the office. The effective time of service is the date and hour recorded by the secretary.

It is interesting to note that the majority opinion in Lamberti v. Stamford, supra, was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Atkins v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • 24 December 1985
    ...the case here, service of process on the following day did not satisfy the statutory requirements. Souza v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 25 Conn.Sup. 174, 176, 199 A.2d 170 (1964). Furthermore, restrictions on the service of process on Sundays were abolished upon the repealing of Gener......
  • Coffin v. Faggella, CV
    • United States
    • Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division
    • 1 December 1967
    ...Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 25 Conn.Sup. 418, 431, 206 A.2d 650; Souza v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 25 Conn.Sup. 174, 176, 199 A.2d 170. In this case, of course, the plaintiffs, having alleged suspension of the running of the statute, bear the burden......
  • Donahue v. Dearborn
    • United States
    • Connecticut Circuit Court
    • 7 January 1969
    ...is one of law and proper for determination upon a motion for summary judgment. Practice Book § 303; Souza v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 25 Conn.Sup. 174, 199 A.2d 170. This negligence action was instituted more than four and a half years after the date of the accident alleged in the ......
  • Schlott v. Zaremski
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • 23 July 1975
    ... ... Atlantic Terra Cotta Co. v. Chesapeake Terra Cotta Co., 96 Conn. 88, 101, 113 A ... Souza v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., ... 25 Conn.Sup. 174, 175, 199 A.2d ... ...
  • 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