James v. Morgan
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield county at' the August term, 186T. • At the December term, 1869, the defendant filed the following motion.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, brought to the Superior Court in Fairfield county at' the August term, 186T. • At the December term, 1869, the defendant filed the following motion. “ The defendant, before pleading to the declaration of the plaintiff, makes this his motion in writing to the court that said case be stricken from the docket and dismissed, for that the said Thomas James is now deceased and has been for a long time, to wit, since May, 1868, and no appearance was entered at the next term after his death by any executor, administrator or representative of said deceased to prosecute said action, nor has…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The motion to erase from the docket in this case is in the nature of a plea in abatement. It is not founded upon any want of jurisdiction in the court over the subject matter of the suit, or the parties, but on the incapacity of the plaintiff to sue or prosecute the action. If granted it defeats the present action without reference to the merits of the cause, and subjects the plaintiff to the expense of bringing a new action, and possibly to a loss of the debt. It is therefore a dilatory plea in the strictest sense. According to the practice in this state courts erase from the docket only…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Reilly v. Antonio Pepe Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Murphy v. Elms HotelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Sisk v. MeagherSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
- Wheeler v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Huntley v. HoltSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.