Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (1991)

Citation
Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (1991)
Parent Document
Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn. 57 (1991)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1991-01-01

Other Sections in This Document (44)

Full Text

867 chars
There is an additional reason for allowing the doctrine against forfeitures to be raised as a defense to a summary process action despite the language of § 52-122. Even at common law, forfeitures are traditionally disfavored. Before the enactment of the Practice Act of 1879, common law courts occasionally allowed a defense against forfeiture upon motion, if all arrearages, interests and costs were paid. See Sheets v. Selden, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 416, 421,19 L. Ed. 166 (1868); 2 J. Taylor, American Law of Landord and Tenant (9th Ed.) § 495; 1 H. Underhill, Landlord and Tenant § 411. Were we to read § 52-122 as excluding summary process from the rule allowing equitable and legal claims in the same action, such a common law defense against forfeitures might still be available. See Seaboard Oil Co. v. Williamson, 1 Conn. Sup. 47 (1935) (allowing such a defense).