Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1894

Lord v. Russell

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided February 19, 1894 · Andrews

64 Conn. 86; 29 A. 242; 1894 Conn. LEXIS 9

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Wachtel v. Rosol (Conn. 1970)
Wexler Construction Co. v. Housing Authority (Conn. 1956)
Warneke v. Preissner (Conn. 1925)
Kirkbride v. Bartz (Conn. 1910)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Andrews, C. J.

We think there was no error. The note itself being made a part of the complaint showed on its face that it had been executed by the defendant. The form is the same as that used in the Practice Act; form 212. The averment that the note was thfe property of the plaintiff implied a delivery to her. It is a rule of pleading that there need be no direct allegation of a fact which otherwise sufficiently appears; nor of a fact necessarily implied from the other averments. 1 Chitty Pleading, 225. Bliss on Code Pleading, § 176. The delivery, even of a deed, although essential to its validity, need not be averred in pleading. 1 Chitty Pleading, 365. New Conn. Civil Officer, p. 13. Prindle v. Caruthers, 15 N. Y., 425; Keteltas v. Meyers, 19 id., 231; Farmers & M. Bank v. Wadsworth, 24 id., 547. A court ought not to misunderstand or refuse to comprehend the or*88dinary import of the words used, nor the meaning of the facts alleged. Colburn v. Tolles, 18 Conn., 524; Draper v. Moriarty, 45 id., 476.

There is no error in the judgment appealed from.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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