Walsh v. Laffen
| Decision Date | 18 October 1944 |
| Citation | 40 A.2d 689,131 Conn. 358 |
| Parties | WALSH v. LAFFEN et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County.
Action by Mary Walsh against Mrs. Walter Laffen and others. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals. On plea in abatement for failure to file assignments of error and on motion by plaintiff appellant for an order directing the clerk of the trial court to accept the assignments of error. Motion denied and action on plea in abatement postponed.
John E. McNerney and Francis J. Moran, both of New Haven, for appellees.
Maxwell H. Goldstein, of New Haven, for appellant.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.
The plaintiff appellant, after a finding had been filed, did not file her assignments of error within the period allowed by § 341 of the Practice Book 1934, p. 100, but, instead, filed within that period a motion asking for an extension of time. The motion gives as the reason, that plaintiff's counsel had engagements making it impossible to give attention to the matter for at least thirty days. The copy of this motion mailed to the trial judge for some reason did not reach him, and when, after the period allowed for filing the assignments had passed, it was brought to his attention, he denied the motion, because in his judgment the reason given did not constitute ‘good cause’ within the provision in § 341 of the Practice Book concerning extensions. The plaintiff nevertheless sent the clerk assignments of error, which the trial judge indorsed: The defendant then filed with the clerk of this court a plea in abatement on the ground that no assignments of error had been filed within the period allowed by the rule and no extension of time granted. Plaintiff on the same day made in the trial court a motion that it order the clerk to accept the assignments, stating several grounds as justification for such action. The trial court denied the motion made to it, on the ground that, as a plea in abatement to the appeal had been filed in this court, it doubted its power to act. Thereafter the plaintiff filed a motion to this court that it direct the clerk of the trial court to accept the assignments of error.
The amount involved in this action is small and the issues upon the appeal as appears from the assignments attempted to be filed are based on an effort to secure such changes in the finding as would make erroneous the trial court's decision. The trial court could reasonably find that the reason given in the motion for an extension of time in which to file assignments of error did not constitute ‘good cause’ within the provisions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. Thomas
...§ 661; Saunders v. Saunders, 140 Conn. 140, 145, 146, 98 A.2d 815; Palmer v. Des Reis, 135 Conn. 388, 390, 64 A.2d 537; Walsh v. Laffen, 131 Conn. 358, 360, 40 A.2d 689. An appeal from a divorce decree or from a decree of legal separation should forestall 'further proceedings in connection ......
-
Cristini v. Griffin Hosp..
...to perfect it, and have held that the filing of a plea in abatement does not prevent it from performing that function. Walsh v. Laffen, 131 Conn. 358, 360, 40 A.2d 689. The answer to the plea in abatement was on sound ground. Moreover, if the plaintiff had been correct in his position, that......
-
Keating v. Patterson
...he had filed his plea in abatement in this court, the trial court was without power to grant the extension of time. In Walsh v. Laffen, 131 Conn. 358, 40 A.2d 689, we held, for reasons not necessary to repeat, that a plea in abatement on such a ground is not well taken.The motion to erase i......
-
More v. Urbano
... ... Practice Book § 413; Walsh v. Laffen, 131 Conn. 358, 359, 360, 40 A.2d 689 ... There are situations in which the trial court is powerless to grant an extension ... ...