209 A.2d 886 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1965
Pursuant to chapter 53 of the General Statutes, entitled "Claims against the State," the plaintiff, on April 10, 1964, filed a notice of claim requesting permission to sue the state. General Statutes §
The statutes require that the plea in abatement not only point out the defect but show how it might have been avoided. General Statutes §
The law is firmly established that the state cannot be sued except with its consent. Anderson v. Argraves,
In addition to what has already been referred to in chapter 53 of the General Statutes, it should be pointed out that there is a limitation on presentation of claims. Section
It was house bill 4003 of the 1959 session of the General Assembly that ultimately became chapter 53 of the General Statutes. When the bill was reported *28
on the floor of the senate on June 3, 1959, the member who reported it stated in part: "[T]he commission may authorize suits against the state on claims over twenty-five hundred dollars when it deems it just and equitable." 8 S. Proc., Pt. 8, 1959 Sess., p. 4076. The court takes judicial notice of this transcript of the legislative proceedings. This may be considered as an aid to the determination of the legislative intent. Lee v. Lee,
When the court considers that chapter 53 is intended to make available a means of suing the state, where such a method did not exist, when it reviews the various sections thereof already referred to, when it considers them, as it must, to be in derogation of sovereignty and therefore to be strictly construed in favor of the state, when it considers the plain import of the language on the floor of the senate, it is led to the conclusion that to support the plaintiff's position here flies in the face of what the legislature intended. A statement of the amount requested as relates to a claim against the state (§
Although the plaintiff filed a motion to strike the plea in abatement on the ground that it was filed too late, this was withdrawn by him in order that the court might consider the merits of the plea in abatement and the demurrer directed to it. This the court has done.
For the reasons given, the demurrer is overruled.