Tweedy v. Nichols
Supreme Court of Connecticut
The opinion of the court in this case will be sufficiently understood without a statement of the facts. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
This is a motion for a new trial of a hearing before the superior court, on the disclosure of a party summoned in on the. original process as a garnishee of the defendant; and, as it is well settled that neither a writ of error nor a motion for a new trial will lie from an interlocutory judgment, we think the motion can not be entertained. The authorities on this subject are all one way. It is sufficient to refer to Ray v. Fitch, 1 Root, 290, Samuel v. Judin, 6 East., 333, and Magill v. Lyman, 6 Conn., 59. We believe also that it has been often so ruled in our own superior court, without any…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Magill v. LymanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Ray v. FitchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1791
3Cited by1 opinion
- Parker, Peebles & Knox v. El SaiehSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928