Stroud v. Bd. of Water Com'rs of City of Hartford
| Decision Date | 19 April 1916 |
| Citation | 90 Conn. 412,97 A. 336 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STROUD v. BOARD OF WATER COM'RS OF CITY OF HARTFORD. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Lucien F. Burpee, Judge.
Action by William E. Stroud against the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Hartford. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. No error.
Bertrand E. Spencer and Gustaf B. Carlson, both of Middletown, for appellant. Warren B. Johnson and Harry W. Reynolds, both of Hartford, for appellee.
The plaintiff's testimony tended to show that he was the owner of the injured motor car; that he had falsely registered it under the name of W. Lennox as the owner; that at all times thereafter it remained so falsely registered; that plaintiff had driven it for pleasure about the state from 1,500 to 2,000 miles in the course of the summer; that on the day of the accident he drove it from Middletown to Hartford, and on arriving at the Hotel Heublien left it in a part of the highway opposite the hotel which is commonly used for parking automobiles, with all power shut off, brakes set, and no one in charge; that about 5:15 a large motor truck owned by the defendant was negligently driven into it by one of defendant's servants, whereby it was injured; and that after the collision the plaintiff drove his car back to Middletown. At the close of the plaintiff's case in chief the defendant moved for and the court granted a nonsuit, on the authority of section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1911, the material portion of which is as follows:
* * *"
Section 2 of the act requires every owner of one or more motor vehicles to file annually with the secretary of state a statement (inter alia) of his "name, residence and post office address," and directs that this information shall be included in the certificate of registration. It is admitted that the plaintiff's car was in that respect not registered according to law.
The plaintiff's first claim is that the provisions as to registration are primarily for revenue, and that false statements as to the identity of the owner are not material. This claim is inadmissible. It is notorious that one important object of this registration is to identify the owners of every car which uses the public highways...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Price
...the owner of an unregistered car has been held to be absolutely precluded from maintaining an action for negligence. Stroud v. Water Commissioners, 90 Conn. 412, 97 Atl. 336. No other conclusion could well have been reached, because the taking away of the violator's civil rights was distinc......
-
Cobb v. Cumberland County Power & Light Co.
...the owner of an unregistered car has been held to be absolutely precluded from maintaining an action for negligence. Stroud v. Water Commissioners, 90 Conn. 412, 97 Atl. 336. No other conclusion could well have been reached, because the taking away of the violator's civil rights was distinc......
-
State v. Pritchett
...to intimate that if it had been the statute would not have been violated. As was said in the recent case of Stroud v. Water Com'rs of City of Hartford, 90 Conn. 412, 97 A. 336, in construing a similar statute: "The word 'operation' * * * must include such stops as motor vehicles ordinarily ......
-
Horst v. Holtzen
...exception, so far as we have discovered, answered in the affirmative. We shall briefly refer to some of them. In Stroud v. Board of Water Commissioners, 90 Conn. 412, 97 A. 336, the Connecticut Supreme Court said: 'It is self-evident that an injury may be received after the operator has bro......