Judges: PER CURIAM.
Filed Date: 12/27/1932
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/14/2017
This writ of error, to review a judgment of the Superior Court denying a petition for a new trial, is brought under the provisions of § 5701 of the General Statutes upon the ground of mispleading. *Page 700
In order to secure relief under this statute, the plaintiffs would have to prove not only that there was mispleading but also that this came about "through fraud, accident or mistake, unconnected with any negligence or inattention" upon their part. Day v.Welles,
We may add that, if it were necessary and allowable to review the issues and course of proceeding in the original action, our conclusion would necessarily be that there was no such mispleading as would justify a new trial, for, had the plaintiffs pleaded in the *Page 701 original action as they now seek to do, the result would inevitably have been the same.
There is nothing erroneous; judgment to enter for the defendant to recover his costs in this court.
Seymour v. City of Norwalk ( 1917 )
London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America v. Duryea ( 1955 )
Dilieto v. County Obs. and Gyn. Gp., No. (X02) Cv97-... ( 2000 )
Dilieto v. County Ob and Gyn. Group, No. (X02) Cv97-... ( 2000 )
Mendrochowicz v. Wolfe ( 1953 )
Appeal From Probate of Williamson ( 1937 )
Blanchard v. Lubinski, No. 0119719 (Jun. 17, 1994) ( 1994 )
Presutti v. City of New Britain, No. Cv 98-0577534 S (Nov. ... ( 1999 )