Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Day 168

Smith v. Rhoades

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 1, 1803

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1803-07-01

In u«e Court below., T. HIS was an action of debt, brought on a judgment, recovered by the present plaintiff, against the present defendant, before the Court of Common Pleas, in the County of Hampshire, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts. . ' ' Pica in bar, that the defendant, at the time the suit Ivas instituted against him, on which the judgment declared upon was founded, was an inhabitant of this State, residing in the Town of Sterling, and was notan inhabitant of the…

Decided 1803-07-01

By the Court.

¶1The defendant’s plea in bar is iasuf-ficient, for that in said plea there is no averment of the want of legal notice of said suit.

¶2The courts of justice, in the respective States, are open to all persons, who apply for the trial of causes, and the *170administration of justice, on questions of right, provided they are legally brought before them. In the defendant’s plea, it does not appear, but that he was found within the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, in the County of Hampshire, and was duly notified of the process. The plaintiff, in his replication, avers, that the defendant had such notice, that he appeared before said Court, submitted to the jurisdiction, and defended in the suit. These facts are not denied, but acknowledged, by the defendant’s rejoinder. It is to be presumed also, from the record, that the defendant was legally served with process, within the State of Massachusetts ; and that* in consequence thereof, he voluntarily appeared, and submitted his cause to the decision of said Court. No good reason, therefore, is perceived, why he should pot be bound thereby.

/1/day/168 · .json · Public domain