Case Name: Johnson v. Hills
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1793-01
Citations: 1 Root 504
Docket Number: 
Parties: Johnson v. Hills.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 504–504

Head Matter:
Johnson v. Hills.
A writ directed to an indifferent person by name, without describing his place of abode, is good.
Writ oe EeeoR to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action Johnson v. Hills, by writ directed in the words following, viz. Whereas no proper officer can be had to serve this writ, without great charge and inconvenience, this writ is directed to Hoger Cogswell an indifferent person to serve and return.
Plea in abatement — Tbat Hoger Cogswell to wbom this writ was directed was not described of any place, town, connty, or state; whereas he was of Washington in the connty of Litch-field. Demurrer.
Judgment — That the plea is sufficient.
Error assigned — That said plea was insufficient, and ought so to have been adjudged.

Opinion:
Judgment — Manifest error. The statute requires that the authority signing the writ shall insert the name of the indifferent person, and the reasons of the direction, without anything more; if this is too loose, the legislature will correct it.