Clark v. Samuel
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Aotion of debt by book against both, as merchants in company, describing them to belong to New Haven; per writ dated the 21st of November A. D. 1791. Service returned upon the writ — New Haven, December 26th, 1791, Then I attached the body of Samuel Helms within named, read this writ in bis hearing, and have taken sufficient .bonds for his appearance at court, etc.
Read the full summary
Aotion of debt by book against both, as merchants in company, describing them to belong to New Haven; per writ dated the 21st of November A. D. 1791. Service returned upon the writ — New Haven, December 26th, 1791, Then I attached the body of Samuel Helms within named, read this writ in bis hearing, and have taken sufficient .bonds for his appearance at court, etc. Samuel Helms plead in abatement —■ That said William Helms the other defendant named in the plaintiff’s writ, died on tbe 20tb of December A. D. 1791, and so was dead before, and on said 26tb of December wben said writ was served…
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment • — ■ That the plea in abatement is sufficient. In tbis case, service upon botb of tbe defendants is necessary; and no service having been made upon either until after Wil-' bands death, the action cannot be said to' have been commenced in bis lifetime, although tbe writ was prayed out before; and not having been commenced in tbe life of said William, it doth not survive against tbe surviving defendant.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Valley Cable Vision, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1978
- Spalding v. ButtsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Jencks v. PhelpsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- Glebus v. FillmoreDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1952
- Spinning v. Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co.Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1858
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.