Stiles v. Homer
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. The original suit was a complaint for forcible entry and detainer, made by Homer and others, against Stiles and others, to a special court, holden in Roxbury, in Litchfield county, by a county commissioner and a justice of the peace.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. The original suit was a complaint for forcible entry and detainer, made by Homer and others, against Stiles and others, to a special court, holden in Roxbury, in Litchfield county, by a county commissioner and a justice of the peace. A verdict was rendered in favour of the complainants; and the defendants filed a bill of exceptions, embracing sundry matters, among which are the following, including the facts relating to the questions noticed, in the opinion of the court. After the jury had been called, by the court, two of them challenged by the defendants and discharged, and two…
1Opinion of the CourtWaite, J.
1. We cannot say, that the court below erred in refusing to receive the defendants’ plea in abatement, at that stage of the cause, at which it was offered. Such pleas are never favoured by courts.
At an early period in the history of our judicial proceedings, a rule was adopted, that pleas in abatement in the county and superior courts, should be filed by the opening of the court in the afternoon of the second day of the session. 1 Root, 564. And at a later period, this court refused to receive a plea in abatement presented in the afternoon of the third day of the term. Witter & ux. v. Mott &…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Boyle v. BoyleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- New Haven & Northampton Co. v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1875
- Shipman v. GlynnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Botham v. FischerConnecticut Superior Court · 1937
- Botham v. FischerPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1937
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.