Woods v. Brzezinski
| Decision Date | 21 August 1889 |
| Citation | 18 A. 252,57 Conn. 471 |
| Parties | WOODS v. BRZEZINSKI. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, New Haven county.
C G. Root, for appellant. H. O. Flaherty, for appellee.
CARPENTER, J. A justice of the peace rendered a judgment against the plaintiff, and issued an execution. The plaintiff brought suit to restrain the levy of it. The court below rendered judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiff appealed.
The first question arises under the plaintiff's claim that he had no notice of the return-day of the original suit. A copy of the complaint was duly left with the plaintiff. The return-day was in fact on the 2d day of February, 1889. The copy was so badly written that he could not tell whether it was the second or third day. By comparing it with other parts of the copy he could have told. Besides, the third was on Sunday. He made no effort to ascertain the correct day until after the judgment was rendered. The court found that the complaint was properly served, and that the defendant in the suit was guilty of negligence in not trying to ascertain the return-day if he was in doubt. This is assigned as a reason of appeal. The ruling of the court was clearly right. The plaintiff was bound to take reasonable measures to ascertain the return-day. A careful reading of the copy would have told him, especially as the third was Sunday. Inquiry of the officer, or a letter to the justice, would have obtained the desired information. Common prudence suggests that some such measure should have been taken.
The refusal to hear evidence as to the merits of the defendant's defense at the time when it was offered was not objectionable. That was only material in case there was no service. As there was service, he had allowed the time for making his defense to go by.
The execution was against the body of the plaintiff. It commanded the officer to arrest the body of the plaintiff, and "dispose of the same according to law." The officer who had it to serve, and each of the parties to it, with his counsel, met and discussed, among other things, the validity of the execution. When they separated, the plaintiff was allowed to go his own way. That execution was returned or destroyed, and the justice, without noticing it or referring to it, issued another. Before the officer could serve that, further proceedings were arrested by this suit and an injunction. On the trial below a question was made whether there was an arrest under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. District Court of Third Judicial Dist. In and For Salt Lake County
... ... 272. For other cases, cousins to the ... present one, see Steinmetz v. Signer, 23 Ind. 386; ... Wright v. Wilmot, 22 Tex. 398; Woods v ... Brzezinski, 57 Conn. 471, 18 A. 252; Pendy v ... Cole , 211 Iowa 199, 233 N.W. 47; Perry v ... Perry , 94 Vt. 487, 111 A. 632 ... ...
-
Black v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp.
...had a reasonable opportunity to avoid the entry of the default and interpose whatever defense he had. See cases such as Woods v. Brzezinski, 57 Conn. 471, 472, 18 A. 252; Jartman v. Pacific Fire Ins. Co., 69 Conn. 355, 362, 37 A. 970. Thus the trial court in effect concluded that Black fail......
-
Chasnoff v. Porto
...as invalid, and the validity of the pluries execution could not have been affected by a failure to take note of it. Woods v. Brzezinski, 57 Conn. 471, 473, 18 A. 252. The plaintiff claims further that there was an abuse of process in that the pluries execution was issued before the expirati......
-
Jartman v. Pac. Fire Ins. Co.
...blunder of its representative. He should have consuited counsel before committing his principal to a policy of inaction. Woods v. Brzezinski, 57 Conn. 471, 18 Atl. 252. The amount of the judgment was not large enough to involve the defendant in any serious loss, while, if the default had be......