64 A.2d 878 | Conn. | 1949
Mrs. Nichols obtained judgment in summary process evicting the Blanchards from a tenement occupied by them, and they bring this writ of error to reverse that judgment. The very limited character of the issues before this court on a writ of error without a bill of exceptions has been recently pointed out. Putterman v. Miller,
The briefs of the parties on this point do not fairly meet each other because Mrs. Nichols treats the action as one in summary process under General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1939, 1429e (Rev. 1949, 8274), while the Blanchards attempt to subject it to all of the conditions imposed by the federal rent control statutes and regulations. The notice to quit, on which the Blanchards rely, is not properly before this court. Putterman v. Miller, supra. An exhibit offered in evidence is not part of the record. O'Keefe v. Atlantic Refining Co., supra. The complaint is in the usual form under the Connecticut statutes, and there is nothing in the record to show that the premises were in an area subject to federal rent control. All of the grounds of demurrer pursued in the brief rely on federal statutes or regulations. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the only issues are on the record. Cary v. Phoenix Ins. Co.,
The Blanchards insist that the federal statutes and regulations concerning rent control must be considered. Section 202(c) of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947 (
There is nothing in this record on which the judgment of the trial court can be reversed.
There is no error.