67 Conn. 19 | Conn. | 1895
In this ease, the appeal to this court was taken by the plaintiffs “to the Supreme Court of Errors to be holden at Hartford, in and for the first judicial district, on the first Tuesday of May, 1895.” The defendant, claiming that said appeal should have been taken to the succeeding October term of said court, filed in due time in this court a plea in abatement in said cause, setting up the facts upon which its claim was based, and praying that the appeal might be dismissed for the reasons set forth in said plea. The facts set up in the plea are substantially admitted in the answer thereto made by the plaintiffs, and to this answer the defendant demurred.
The record shows that the judgment from which the present appeal was taken, was rendered May 1st, 1895; that notice of appeal was filed on the fourth of the same month ; that a finding of facts was filed by the judge with the clerk, on the 16th of May, 1895; and that the appeal in writing was filed and allowed on the 24th day of that month. It further appears that the term of the Supreme Court of Errors, to which the appeal was thus taken, had ended before the written appeal was filed and allowed.
It thus appears that the May term of this court, to which the appeal was taken, was the term “ next to be held ” after th& judgment was rendered and after the notice of appeal was filed; while the October term, 1895, was the one “ next to be held ” after the written appeal was filed and allowed.
Under the Act of 1889 (Public Acts of 1889, Chap. 116), providing that an appeal of this kind may be taken to the term to be held next after the filing of the appeal, it is conceded that the plaintiffs might have taken their appeal to the October term; but they claim that they were also at liberty, under the provisions of the General Statutes relating to appeals of this kind, to take it, at their option, to the May term; an<j the question here is whether this claim is well founded.
The answer to the question thus raised by the plea in abatement depends upon the construction to be put upon § 1129 of the General Statutes, which in cases of this kind provides as follows: “ If either party thinks himself aggrieved by the decision of the court upon any question or questions of law arising in the trial, he may appeal from the judgment of the court in such cause or action and remove the said question or questions, for revision, to the Supreme Court of Errors next to be held in the judicial district or county where the judgment was rendered.”
What do the words “may appeal ... to the Supreme Court of Errors next to be held,” as they stand in this section, mean ? Do they mean the term of court to be held next after the rendition of the judgment, even in cases where the written appeal is filed after such term has begun or has ended ; or do they invariably mean the term of court next to be held after the written appeal is filed ?
We think this last is the true meaning of the words in question, whether considered as standing by themselves, or when read, as they ought to be, in the light of the four sections immediately following § 1129. If we once determine when, and at what stage of the proceedings described in the five sections referred to, an appeal is or may he said to be “ taken,” it will go far to settle the question under consideration.
The plaintiffs seem to contend that the appeal is taken when the notice of appeal is filed, but this clearly cannot be true. The notice of the appeal is not the appeal itself. It is not required that the notice shall state the court to which
Under these sections then, we think the appeal is taken only when the written appeal is filed in substantial compliance with their provisions; and when, therefore, § 1129 says a party “may appeal ... to the. Supreme Court of Errors next to be held in the judicial district or county where the judgment was rendered,” it means an appeal to a term of court to be held next subsequent to the time of filing the written appeal, and not an appeal to a term of court ended, or already begun at that time. In short we think the words last above quoted must be construed as if they read, “ may appeal ... to the Supreme Court of Errors next to be held after the filing of the appeal, in the judicial district or county where the judgment was rendered.”
This construction we think best carries out the legislative intent expressed in those sections; it preserves the rights of all parties; it leads to no absurd results; and it gives a general, certain, and imperative rule, easily understood and easily followed. On the other hand, the construction contended for by the plaintiffs serves no useful purpose, and leads, or
In the light of what has been said, we think the Act of 1889 hereinbefore referred to, must be regarded simply as declaratory of the meaning of § 1129, and not as giving a right of appeal which did not exist before. The conclusion reached makes it necessary to hold • that the plea in abatement must be sustained and the appeal dismissed.
The plea in abatement is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.