Zarillo v. Peck
| Decision Date | 09 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 210,210 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | John A. ZARILLO, Jr., et al. v. John C. PECK et al. |
Joseph F. Keefe, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).
John P. McKeon, Hartford, for appellees (defendants).
The issue raised by the first assignment or error and the principal issue involved in this appeal is whether a writ, summons and complaint received by a sheriff, by mail, had been 'personally delivered' within the meaning of § 52-593a 1 of the General Statutes. We hold that it has been so delivered and we reverse, the second assignment of error was not briefed and is considered abandoned. State v. Keeler, 164 Conn. 42, 43, 316 A.2d 782. The third assignment was withdrawn during argument.
This is a negligence action. The accident which gave rise to the action occurred on October 24, 1970. According to the sheriff's return, the writ was served on the defendant on November 1, 1972. In response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ground that the right of action for the cause stated in the complaint was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, the deputy sheriff who served the writ signed an affidavit stating that the writ, summons and complaint 'came into his hands on October 18, 1972, delivered via U.S. Mail.' If the receipt of the writ, as described, complied with § 52-593a then the service of the complaint within fifteen days of that receipt was timely.
It may be noted, parenthetically, that the return did not conform with the statutory requirement that the deputy sheriff who made service endorse thereon the date of delivery of the writ to him. Since this irregularity has not been questioned, and since, in any event, it is curable by amendment of the return; Hannon v. Bramley, 65 Conn. 193, 199, 32 A. 336; we may proceed to consider the ground upon which the trial court granted summary judgment, namely, that the writ was barred because the delivery of the writ to the officer by mail did not comply with § 52-593a, the extension statute.
Section 52-593a, unlike General Statutes § 52-54, the service-of-summons statute, does not spell out how delivery shall be made. The latter statute, for example, prescribes that service shall be made by reading the summons and complaint in the hearing of the defendant or by leaving an attested copy with him or at his usual place of abode. The purpose of prescribing those modes of service is to ensure actual notice to the defendant. Smith v. Smith, 150 Conn. 15, 20, 183 A.2d 848; Clegg v. Bishop, 105 Conn. 564, 569, 136 A. 102. That objective is furthered by requiring the serving officer to report his doings on his return. See General Statutes § 52-90.
All that § 52-593a requires, on the other hand, is that the process be personally delivered. It does not require that the delivery be made by the plaintiff, his attorney, or any particular individual. The person making the delivery has no statutory role to perform respecting the delivery. He is neither required nor permitted to endorse his doings on the return. In addition, the statute does not detail the manner of making delivery. The word 'deliver' includes a handing over for the purpose of taking even though both acts do not occur simultaneously. State v. Koenig, 120 Conn. 39, 43, 178 A. 923. Although delivery by mail is not mentioned in the extension statute, such delivery is not precluded. The fact that the extension statute becomes operative only where the process has been delivered before the running of the statute of limitations, and the fact that the serving officer is required to attest to the date of delivery suggest that the purpose of the statute is to ensure that the process is received on time by the officer. The word 'personally' means in a personal manner; Webster, Third New International Dictionary; in person, World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary. For...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Preleski
...in person by" or has "come into the possession of" the receiving officer. Id., at 74, 44 A.3d 191 ; see also Zarillo v. Peck , 33 Conn. Supp. 676, 679, 366 A.2d 1165 ("The use of the word ‘personally’ in [ § 52-593a (a) ] makes it crystal clear that the process must be received by the offic......
-
Johnson v. Preleski
...briefing order.8 In its analysis, this court implicitly adopted the interpretation of § 52–593a set forth in Zarillo v. Peck, 33 Conn.Supp. 676, 678–79, 366 A.2d 1165, cert. denied, 171 Conn. 731, 357 A.2d 515 (1976).9 This court has held that the requirement set forth in § 52–593a (b), tha......
-
Tucker v. Connecticut Ins. Placement Facility
...taking even though both acts do not occur simultaneously. State v. Koenig, 120 Conn. 39, 43, [178 A. 923 (1935) ]." Zarillo v. Peck, 33 Conn.Sup. 676, 678, 366 A.2d 1165, cert. denied, 171 Conn. 731, 357 A.2d 515 (1976). When a statute, such as section 49-73d, authorizes delivery by mail th......
-
Tucker v. Connecticut Ins. Placement Facility
...taking even though both acts do not occur simultaneously. State v. Koenig, 120 Conn. 39, 43 [178 A. 923 (1935) ]." Zarillo v. Peck, 33 Conn.Sup. 676, 678, 366 A.2d 1165 (1976). When the statement was mailed at the post office, it was handed over for the insurance company's The meaning of "w......