Summary
In Andrews v. Hammond, 1 Conn.Sup. 21 (1935), the trial court overruled a plea in abatement where plaintiff's counsel failed to include his name on the copy of the writ served upon the defendant as required by the rules of practice.
Summary of this case from Luckingham v. CampbellOpinion
File No. 46335
Taylor Lovejoy, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Pullman Comley (Specially), Attorneys for the Defendant.
Plea in abatement and to the jurisdiction, pressing claim that copy of original process served upon defendant was not in fact a true copy, overruled, the Court holding that the words omitted do not and cannot affect a full and complete understanding by the Court of the person and cause intended by the process.
MEMORANDUM FILED FEBRUARY 8, 1935.
The only claim pressed on this plea in abatement is that the document purporting to be a copy of the original process and which was served upon this defendant is not, in fact, a true copy of the original process. The original process is signed "Frederick Lovejoy, Jr., Commissioner of the Superior Court for Fairfield County". The document served upon this defendant is a true copy of the original process except that the words "Frederick Lovejoy, Jr." are omitted.
"No writ, pleading, judgment or any kind of proceeding in court or course of justice shall be abated, suspended, set aside or reversed for any kind of circumstantial errors, mistakes or defects, if the person and the cause may be rightly understood and intended by the Court." G. S. Sec. 5536.
The omission of the words "Frederick Lovejoy, Jr." do not and cannot, in the slightest degree, affect a full and complete understanding by the Court of the person and cause intended by the process.
"Pleas in abatement are not favored." Budd, Admr. vs. Meriden Electric R. R. Co., 69 Conn. 272, 283.