Case Name: Nichols v. Baldwin et al.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1793-01
Citations: 1 Root 496
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nichols v. Baldwin et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
Nichols v. Baldwin et al.
Wliere there are several defendants In a prosecution, and several judgments in the County Court, part of whom bring a writ of error and have the judgments reversed as to them; and the plaintiff enters his original cause, the defendants who were not-parties to- the writ of error, are not before the court.
The case tras — Nichols brought a petition toi the County Court, showing that old Mr. Hurd, his wife’s father was impotent and poor; that he had expended large sujms in supporting him; that Foot and Sherman married two other of said Hurd’s daughters, and that said Baldwins were his grandsons by another daughter, and were all of ability and ought to contribute towards the support of Hurd.
The County Court ordered that said Foot and Sherman and their wives should contribute to the support of their father Hurd; but made no order respecting the Baldwins.
Foot and Sherman and their wives brought a writ of error to the Superior Court, complaining of the order of the County Court, in which the Baldwins were not made parties; the judgment of the County Court with respect to them, said Foot and Sherman and wives was reversed, and) Nichols entered his original process in this court.
Foot and Sherman plead in abatement — That their wives-had never received any property from their father Hurd;, that they were not holden to contribute to the support of their wives’ father. Judgment — Plea in abatement sufficient.
Nichols then moved for a citation to- cite in the Baldwins to show reason why they should not contribute to the support of their grandfather Hurd. A citation issued from the clerk and was served. They now appeared and plead in abatement, therein setting forth the original process, this citation- and service, and thereupon say that they are not holden to- make answer to said original petition and process. Mack v. Parsons, etc. Kirby’s Rep. 155.

Opinion:
The plea in abatement was judged to be sufficient, upon the ground that there were no parties before this court, but those who were parties to the writ of error; that there was no cause here but that which was brought up by the writ of error and reversed; that the Baldwins were not parties to the-writ of error, nor was the canse as it respected them, brought up by the writ of error.