Case ID: kirby_1/html/0027-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By DrKR, Siiebjiak and PiTKiN, J J. Law, C. J., and Ellsworth, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wooster and Wooster v. Parsons.
    When an action is brought before any court of inferior and limited jurisdiction, the declaration ought to aver expressly, that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court.
    Ebbob from the City Court in Middletown. The defendant in error brought his action on a promissory note, dated at New Haven the 7th day of June, 1784, before the City Court in Middletown, and obtained judgment by default. Errors assigned,
    1. That it appears by the records, that said note was executed before the city of Middletown was incorporated, and before the granting the charter incorporating the same; said, charter of incorporation, being granted by the general assembly, hoi den at Hartford on the second Thursday of May, 1784; which assembly was sitting at the time when said note was executed.
    2. That said note was not executed rvithin the limits of said city of Middletown, but in the town of New Haven: And the cause of action did not arise within the limits of the city of Middletown.
    3. That it doth not appear by said record, that said note was executed in said city of Middletown, hut that the same was executed without the limits of said city.
    
      Tbe defendant in error demurred specially, and for cause assigned, tbat said writ contains an assignment of errors both in law and in fact, wbicb, cannot be joined in one writ of error: For, it is assigned for error, tbat said note was executed before tbe incorporation of. said city of Middle-town; and also tbat said note was not executed witbin tbe limits of said city, but in tbe town of New Haven: Botb wbicb are assignments of errors in fact, not appearing on tbe ■ record, and triable only by issues in fact. And tbe plaintiffs further assign, tbat it does not appear by tbe record, tbat said note was executed in said city of Middletown, but tbat tbe same was executed out of tbe limits of said city. Wbicb is an assignment of error in law, and triable only by issue in law.
    Second, Tbe defendant in error, by protestation tbat said facts, by tbe plaintiffs in error assigned, are not true, saitb, tbat said errors in fact contain only tbe substance of a plea to tbe jurisdiction of said City Court, wbicb tbe plaintiffs in error ought by law to have pleaded and excepted against before said City Court, and having then waived tbe same, they cannot by law assign said matters in error; and tbat said errors assigned are in contradiction of tbe record.
    Third, Tbat said assignment of error in law, alleging tbat it does not appear by said record tbat said note was executed in said city of Middletown, but tbat tbe same was executed out of the Emits of said city, is an allegation contrary to said record, and cannot by law be assigned in error.
    Fourth, Tbat no matter or thing, in said writ of error assigned, is sufficient to warrant tbe reversal of said judgment.
    On argument of this case, by Mr. Parsons and Mr. Trumbull, for tbe defendant in error, and by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Obauncey, for tbe plaintiffs, judgment was reversed.
   By DrKR, Siiebjiak and PiTKiN, J J.

1. When an action is brought before any court of limited and inferior jurisdiction, the declaration ought to ayer expressly, that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court (2 Ld. Raym. 1310); and the place should be particularly alleged: Neither of which was done with sufficient certainty in the present case. The note on which, etc., is alleged to have been executed in the city aforesaid; the city of New Haven, and the city of Middletown, having been, both before mentioned, therefore, uncertain to which the reference was intended. See Coke on Littleton, 20, a. “If a lease for life is made to A. remainder in tail to B. remainder to O. informa praedicta, the remainder to C. is void for uncertainty.” 2 Ld. Raym. 886-890. Judgment arrested for a like uncertainty. This author makes a distinction between praedicta, and some other relative terms, which he supposes commonly refer to the last antecedent; but that the rule admits of many exceptions. If such an uncertain reference would render a grant void, which would be supported, if by any reasonable construction it could be made certain, it must a fortiori be fatal to a declaration, which is to be construed most strongly against the declarant. 3 Salk. 199; Hard. 77; Dyer, 17. If the note has been executed in the city of Middletown, the allegation ought to have been “in the city of Middletown aforesaid, within the jurisdiction of the said court.”

2. Tbe note on wbicb, etc., is dated tbe 7 th of June, 1784, and tbe session of tbe legislature at wbicb tbe law; was enacted, for incorporating tbe city of Middletown, ended tbe lltb of tbe same June, as appears of record: And, therefore, tbe cause of action arose before tbe jurisdiction of tbe city of Middletown commenced; for laws in.this state are not in force till tbe end of tbe session in wbicb they are passed, unless by special provision in tbe statute; for during tbe whole of tbe session, they are subject to alteration, or to be totally negatived and not entered on record; whereas after tbe end of tbe session, they become matters of record, and cannot be altered or repealed, but by a new act passed and recorded: Nor would it be reasonable that people should be affected by laws before they are published, wbicb is not done (except in special instances) before tbe rising of the legislature.

3. As to tbe exception in tbe defendants’ plea, that errors in law and errors in fact are joined in tbe writ, tbe plaintiffs have assigned no facts in error, upon wbicb they rely, but such as appearuf record: And an assignment of errors in fact, not properly assignable, together with sufficient errors in law, will not vitiate tbe writ.

Therefore, tbe judgment of tbe City Court was reversed.

Law, C. J., and Ellsworth, J.,

dissenting. As to tbe first exception in error, "that tbe plaintiff, in tbe original suit, has not alleged, with sufficient certainty, that tbe cause of action arose within tbe city of Middletown.”

Tbe averment is, that “ tbe note was executed within tbe city aforesaid.” And tbe city of Middletown was tbe next antecedent. And tbe rule in pleadings, as in grammar, is, that relation must always be to tbe next antecedent, unless tbe sense binders; wbicb in this instance cannot be pretended. Hardress, 77; 3 Salkeld, 199. It has formerly been held by some that praediclmn was of less certain relation than idem; but there appears no reason for the distinction, and it hath not been kept up. And in Khodes and Coles case, 2 Ld. Raym. 886, which turned upon the reference of praedietum or aforesaid, Chief Justice Holt held it must be to the next antecedent; and the case was finally adjudged according to his opinion. Certainty, to common intendment, is sufficient in support of a judgment; for semper presumiler pro sententia. And though formerly the courts of Westminster Hail would presume nothing in favor of inferior jurisdictions, or the regularity of their proceedings, of late years they have presumed liberally in support of them. 1 Ld. Raym. 80 — and Cowper, 18.

With regard to the second exception, “that the cause of action arose before the city of Middletown was incorporated.”

The act of incorporation, as appears from the journals of the house of assembly, passed and was completed the- 24th day of Hay, fourteen days preceding the date of the note: And it was afterwards revocable only as every statute is, by a concurrence of both branches of the legislature. And although had it been a penal or mandatory act, it would not have so had effect as to become obligatory on the citizens of the state at large, until they had had means of the knowledge of it, which ordinarily would not have been till the rising of the assembly, and the return of their representatives; yet being in nature of a grant, and there being no time mentioned therein when it should begin to take effect, it took effect immediately; and the jurisdiction it gave of suits, where the cause of action should arise,” etc., has relation to the time of the act’s passing; unless, according to the British rule of construing statutes in such cases, it shall, in amplification of the grant or authority, have relation to the first day of the session in which it passed. 1 Roll. Abr. 465; 4 Inst. 25, 27; Hob. 309. As to the objection to this construction of the act, that it may subject causes to the decision of a forum which the parties, at the time the cause of action arose, did not contemplate — it is of very little weight; as it does not affect the rule or principles of the decision: And it has been always disregarded by the legislature in the institution of new courts; even where they have gone so far as to change the mode of trial from a jury to a single minister, as in the late enlargement of the jurisdiction of justices of the peace.

It appears, therefore, to us from the record, that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the City Court; both in point of- time and locality; and that that court did not err in taking cognizance of the cause. 
      
       The reason of the distinction is, that aforesaid may with propriety relate to any term, that has been before used in the same instrument or writing, however remote; but the other relative terms there mentioned, can only relate to some word in the same sentence.