Gaylord v. Payne
Supreme Court of Connecticut
There were several defendents in error, some of whom were inhabitants of this state, and others resided out of the state. Payne and his wife, inhabitants of this state, pleaded in abatement, the want of service on them. It appeared, that they had subscribed an acknowledgement, on the back of the writ, that it had been duly served on them; but no actual service on them had been made.
Read the full summary
There were several defendents in error, some of whom were inhabitants of this state, and others resided out of the state. Payne and his wife, inhabitants of this state, pleaded in abatement, the want of service on them. It appeared, that they had subscribed an acknowledgement, on the back of the writ, that it had been duly served on them; but no actual service on them had been made. A copy had been left with M. F. Mills, Esq. as attorney to the defendants out of the state. contended, that the acknowledgment in question, did not either furnish evidence of service, or supply the want of it,…
1Per curiam
It is matter of positive law, that service must be made upon the defendants in the state twelve days at least before the sitting of the court. Until that has been done, there is no cause pending.
Motion denied.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Daley v. Board of Police Commissioners of East HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1947
- Jepsen v. Toni Co.Connecticut Superior Court · 1957
- Chevalier v. WakefieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912