State v. Bartholomew

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: State v. Bartholomew, 138 A. 787, 106 Conn. 698 (Conn. 1927)
• Decision Date: 07 October 1927
• Parties: STATE EX REL. FOOTE v. BARTHOLOMEW. STATE v. ERICKSON.

138 A. 787

106 Conn. 698

STATE EX REL. FOOTE v. BARTHOLOMEW.

STATE v. ERICKSON.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

October 7, 1927

In Bartholomew Case:

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Isaac Wolfe and Arthur F. Ells, Judges.

In Erickson Case:

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Newell Jennings, Arthur F. Ells, and Isaac Wolfe, Judges.

Action for mandamus by the State, on the relation of William R Foote, against Clifford G. Bartholomew, and action by the State against E. Victor Erickson. From judgment in each case for plaintiff, and for peremptory writs of mandamus respondents appeal. Remanded for further proceedings.

Actions for mandamus, brought to and heard by the superior court in New Haven county, and judgment entered in each case for the plaintiff. Upon appeal to this court, error was found, and the cases remanded for further proceedings.

After various motions and rulings, new returns were filed demurrers to which were sustained by Wolfe, J. The respondents refusing to plead further, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs and that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue in each case, by Ells, J., from which the respondents appealed.

Ernest L. Averill, of Branford, for appellants.

George E. Beers and Rolfe W. Skulason, both of New Haven, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and AVERY JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The case of Foote v. Bartholomew was before this court and is reported in 103 Conn. 607, 132 A. 30, while State v. Erickson is reported in 104 Conn. 542, 133 A. 683. Before the arguments upon the present appeal, the defendants filed in this court a motion to continue the cases or remand them to the superior court for further hearing, on the plea that the General Assembly of 1927 had passed, and the Governor of the state had signed, an act (Laws 1927, c. 325, § 22) validating the tax lists and the grand list involved in these proceedings, and both parties were heard in argument upon that motion. We ruled that the cases be not continued in this court, but upon the question of remand reserved decision.

These appeals are from judgments entered in the superior court March 8, 1927, while the validating act in question was approved by the Governor May 24, 1927; the act not becoming effective under the law until July 1st following.

So far as the merits of these cases are concerned, the sole question for us to determine would be whether the judgments of the superior court were correct as the facts appear in the record and as the law was at the time the actions were brought.

" When relief is sought relative to the doing of any act, the action stands or falls by the facts and governing law existing at the time of bringing suit." State ex rel. Foote v. Bartholomew, 103 Conn. 607, 622, ...