DocketNumber: File 127393
Judges: Klau
Filed Date: 3/7/1963
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
The defendants move to strike and dismiss this action on the ground that no service of any kind was made upon them and no service was made at the defendants' usual place of abode. The plaintiffs claim that service was made at the usual place of abode of the defendants. A hearing on this issue was held and testimony offered by the parties.
The following facts are found: The return of the deputy sheriff Cwikla, as appears on the writ, states that on October 16, 1961, he left a true and attested copy of the writ at the usual place of abode of each of the defendants. On October 16, 1961, and for several years prior thereto, the defendants, husband and wife, lived in a first-floor apartment, known as apartment 1-A, of a six-family multiple dwelling located at 9 Owen Street in the city of Hartford. The deputy sheriff, who was given the *Page 489 writs by the plaintiffs' attorney to serve and who made the return, went to 9 Owen Street between 7:30 p.m. and 8 p.m. on October 16, 1961, a day prior to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations with respect to the plaintiffs' negligence action, rang the bell located in the outer vestibule which indicated the defendants' apartment, and then, after waiting a very short while, opened the door to the inner hall, found the door of apartment 1-A on the first floor right, and pushed two copies of the writ and complaint, one for each defendant, at least half way under the door into the interior of the apartment. The door was the only one leading into the defendants' apartment from the hallway. The deputy sheriff then left, without knocking on the door or endeavoring to ascertain whether anyone was inside the apartment. At the time the deputy sheriff pushed copies of the writ under the door, the defendants were at home. The defendant wife was very ill and was awaiting entrance into the hospital. The defendants were home the morning of October 17, 1961, and sometime during the day the defendant wife went into the hospital suffering from a condition which proved to be fatal. She died eleven days later. The defendant husband is a distributor for some type of merchandise and used his apartment as his office. The mailman, in delivering mail to him, frequently pushed it under the door, and the defendant husband was accustomed to picking up his mail in that manner, although his prior attention in picking up his mail was directed to first class mail and especially mail which he thought contained a check. During the days immediately following October 16, the defendant husband was deeply concerned and worried about his wife's condition. The defendants, through their attorney, became aware in November, 1961, that the writ, which was returnable the first Tuesday of November, 1961, had been returned by the *Page 490 sheriff to the clerk of the Superior Court in Hartford County, with his return as above indicated appearing thereon.
The issue presented here is whether service has been made in accordance with the requirements of the statute. Section
"Section
There is no question that apartment 1-A at 9 Owen Street in Hartford, Connecticut, was the usual place of abode of the defendants. The sole question is whether the service made by the deputy *Page 491
sheriff as indicated met the requirements of §
The door leading into the defendants' apartment under which the deputy sheriff pushed the writ was the door to the defendants' usual place of abode.
Zingarelli v. Dinan, No. Cv93 0309746s (May 20, 1994) ( 1994 )
Phoenix Limo. Service v. Est. of Hilchen, No. Cv000378706s (... ( 2001 )
57 Pratt LLC v. Glazer, No. Hdsp-107724 (Jun. 28, 2000) ( 2000 )
Fine Homebuilders, Inc. v. Perrone ( 2006 )
Town of Orange v. Liner, No. Cv92 04 16 92s (Jun. 3, 1993) ( 1993 )
Ceci Bros. Inc. v. Five Twenty One Corp., No. Cv96 0150073 ... ( 1996 )
Krom v. Krom, No. Fa 97-07 14850s (Jan. 6, 2003) ( 2003 )
Evans v. Evans, No. 6631 (Nov. 12, 1992) ( 1992 )
Tsukroff v. Fordham, No. Sph 87791 (Sep. 13, 1996) ( 1996 )
Riverdale Assoc. v. Fehrs, No. Cvnh 7173-A (Apr. 1, 1996) ( 1996 )
Brodax v. Surgitek, Inc., No. 0299382 (Jan. 20, 1995) ( 1995 )