Windham Community Memorial Hospital v. Town of Windham

• Citation: 350 A.2d 785,32 Conn.Supp. 271
• Decision Date: 29 September 1975
• Docket Number: 003826,Nos. 003825,s. 003825
• Court: Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut
• Parties: WINDHAM COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. TOWN OF WINDHAM.

Page 785

350 A.2d 785

32 Conn.Supp. 271

WINDHAM COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. TOWN OF WINDHAM.

Nos. 003825, 003826.

Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut, Windham County.

Sept. 29, 1975.

Dupont, Dupont, Tobin & Williams, New London, for plaintiff.

Lane & Rosen, Willimantic, for defendant.

CRAMER, Judge.

In those two cases the plaintiff, Windham Community Memorial Hospital, hereinafter referred to as the hospital, is bringing actions against the defendant, town of Windham, hereinafter referred to as the town, for the reasonable value of services performed by the hospital for certain persons alleged to be residents of the town. The town has moved for trial by jury, and the hospital has moved to strike from the jury docket on the ground that the town is not entitled to a trial by jury under section 52-215 of the General Statutes.

In § 52-215 it appears that as a matter of right the following named cases should be entered in the docket as jury cases upon proper request: 'Appeals from probate involving the validity of a will or paper purporting to be such, appeals from the doings of commissioners on insolvent estates, and, except as hereinafter provided, civil actions involving such an issue of fact as, prior to January 1, 1880, would not present a question properly cognizable in equity.' The cases before the court do not, of course, all within the first two classes, and the question to be answered is this: Is this a civil action involving such an issue of fact as, prior to January 1, 1880, would not present a question properly cognizable in equity? The term 'cognizable in equity' means capable of being judicially heard and determined in equity. Roy v. Moore, 85 Conn. 159, 162, 82 A. 233.

As a general rule, jury trials may be denied in purely statutory proceedings. There is no constitutional right to a trial by jury of any action which was not so triable when the state constitution was adopted. Swanson v. Boschen, 143 Conn. 159, 120 A.2d 546. The test, however, is the nature of the issue not whether the action is statutory. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Spring Brook Farm Dairy, 135 Conn. 294, 64 A.2d 39.

There are two standards in our statutes, either of which may be applied, to determine when a town is liable for bills incurred by its residents in hospitals. The first is established in section 17-273 of the General Statutes: 'Each person who has not estate sufficient for his support, and has no relatives of sufficient ability who are obliged by law to support him, shall be provided for and supported at the expense of the town in which he resides.' The second standard, § 17-274, states: '(E)ach town shall furnish necessary hospitalization for all persons liable to be supported by such town or unable to pay for the same over a reasonable period of time.' It should be noted that the words preceding 'or' in § 17-274 refer to the...