General

LILLIE E. DICKERMAN vs. LOMAS NETTLETON CO., TRUSTEE, ET AL.

1 Conn. Supp. 144·Connecticut Superior Court·1935·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

LILLIE E. DICKERMAN vs. LOMAS NETTLETON CO., TRUSTEE, ET AL. Superior Court New Haven County File #46416 Present: Hon. FREDERICK M. PEASLEY, Judge. H. L. Dickerman, Attorney for the Plaintiff. Clark, Hall & Peck, Attorneys for the Defendant. MEMORANDUM FILED MARCH 28, 1935. [MAJORITY — PEASLEY, J.] PEASLEY, J. The answer in this case is voluminous and in some paragraph violates the rule against the pleading of evidential matters, but threaded through the whole of the nineteen paragraphs a proper, legal defense can be discerned. The motion to expunge would in this case, if granted, perform the function of a demurrer, and it has been repeatedly held that it can not be made to serve that purpose. The motion to expunge is therefore denied.