Connecticut Superior Court, 1937

Stow v. Groton Savings Bank

Stow v. Groton Savings Bank
Connecticut Superior Court · Decided September 22, 1937 · O'SULLIVAN, J.
5 Conn. Super. Ct. 282

Counsel

Robert J. Woodruff, Attorney for the Plaintiff. Hull, McGuire Hull, Attorneys for the Defendant.

Stow v. Groton Savings Bank

Opinion of the Court

The amended reply creates a departure from the original cause of action in that it has introduced material matter which not only fails to support but is in fact inconsistent with the complaint. No respectable system of pleading permits this for it tends to confusion. If the plaintiff desires to change his position, ample means are available through an amendment to his original complaint.

Although Swift states that a demurrer is the proper method of meeting departure and although this seems to be in conformity with the weight of authority, this State has approved of a motion to strike as at least effective to accomplish the end sought. Logiodice vs. Cannon, 60 Conn. 81. See alsoBliss on Pleading, Section 396; Philibert vs. Burch,4 Mo. Appeals, 470.

The motion to strike is granted.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.