Criminal Law · MBE-tested

THE F. MANSFIELD & SONS CO., INC. vs. RAYMOND PAUSCH ET UX.

8 Conn. Supp. 402·Connecticut Superior Court·1940·CT

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

THE F. MANSFIELD & SONS CO., INC. vs. RAYMOND PAUSCH ET UX. Superior Court New Haven County File No. 59073 MEMORANDUM FILED JULY 16, 1940. Watrous, Hewitt, Gumbart & Corbin, of New Haven, for the Plaintiff. Slade, Slade & Slade, of New Haven, for the Defendants. [MAJORITY — QUINLAN, J.] QUINLAN, J. The demurrer to a lone paragraph, viz;., paragraph 6, which does not of itself attempt to state a cause of action, is improperly pleaded. Practice Book (1934) §97. So far as the demurrer to the prayer for relief is concerned, the more specific statement in conjunction with paragraph 6 adequately states a cause upon which such relief could be predicated. See, however, form 249 in connection with form 250, Practice Book (1934) pp. 215, 216. In its present form, as to subdivision I of the demurrer, and at the present time, in view of such allegations as do ap' pear as to subdivision II, the demurrer is. overruled.