36 A.2d 743 | Conn. | 1944
This case is concerned with the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a suit for divorce and involves the construction of General Statutes, 5181. *656 This provides, in part: "If the plaintiff shall not have continuously resided in this state three years next before the date of the complaint, it shall be dismissed. . . ."
The finding, as corrected, discloses the following facts on the question of jurisdiction: Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1919. Since 1921 the plaintiff has been a dentist, commissioned in the United States Navy. He has been stationed at various places in the United States and in 1935 was assigned to New London, where he resided continuously and uninterruptedly for more than three years. He became attached to New London, has ever since claimed it as his residence and intends to return there to live upon his release from the service.
In 1938 the plaintiff was sent to Boston and remained in Massachusetts to the date of trial, 1942, engaged on his service. He moved all of his personal effects there except some civilian clothing, registered his automobile and cabin cruiser, opened a bank account and occupied an apartment under a written lease.
On these facts the trial court concluded that the plaintiff had been continuously a resident of Connecticut for more than three years next before the date of his complaint, December 6, 1940. This conclusion is assigned as error.
In Morgan v. Morgan,
In the Morgan case, the plaintiff kept a room in Hartford and was actually there three or four times a year for two or three days at a time. This plaintiff, as far as appears, never returned to New London after he left there in 1938. Granting that, in view of his expressed intention and the character of his occupation, New London was still his legal domicil, the conclusion of the trial court that he was "continuously resident" there for three years before the service of his complaint cannot be sustained.
The plaintiff argues that, if this is the law, few service men can satisfy the Connecticut residence requirements because of their service in the armed *658
forces of the country. Be that as it may, it is within the power of the legislature to grant relief. The courts can only construe the statutes in accordance with the expressed legislative intent. Lee Bros. Furniture Co. v. Cram,
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.