PREFATORY NOTE. Under a resolution of the General Assembly at its January session, 1878, Hon. Origen S. Seymour, LL.D., Hon. LaFayette S. Foster, LL.D., Simeon E. Baldwin, Esq., William Hamersley, Esq., and Hon. Lyman D. Brewster, were appointed a Commission to inquire into the feasibility of simplifying the existing system of legal procedure, by abolishing all unnecessary distinctions between forms of action, and otherwise securing a more speedy administration of justice; and to report their recommendations to the next Assembly, with an appropriate bill to carry the same into effect. They reported a bill for a new Practice Act, which, with some slight amendments, was adopted in 1879, and is given at length in this volume. At the request of the Judges of the Superior Court, made under the authority of the thirty-third section of the Act, the orders, rules, and forms to carry the Act into effect were also prepared by the same Commission. These, after having been submitted to the Judges of the Supreme Court of Errors, early in June, were considered by all the Judges at their annual meeting in June; then more critically examined and revised by one of their number as a special committee; and finally acted upon at an adjourned meeting in September. It seems proper to place before the profession a few general statements as to the nature of the new system of practice thus introduced. To a certain though limited extent, this Practice Act adopts provisions which are common to the English Judicature Act, and to the codes or practice acts of many of the States of the Union; but it is unlike them in many respects. It does not profess to fill the place of a code of civil procedure by grouping together all the provisions of law in regard to civil actions, as has been done in New York and other States. Only those matters as to which the law is changed are embraced in the Act, and these changes are comparatively few. The codes of most of the States have abolished pleas to the jurisdiction, and in abatement; have substituted, in many cases, motions to the court, in place of demurrers; and require an affidavit to the truth of the complaint and answer. Under the English Judicature Act all causes of action, if between the same parties however diverse, may be joined in one suit, subject only to a discretionary power in the court to order. separate trials. None of these changes have been made by the Practice Act of Connecticut. Most of the States provide that the party beneficially interested in the cause of action must be the party plaintiff to a suit upon it. This Act leaves our law on that subject untouched, except that it allows the joinder in an action of all the parties interested therein, whether the interest be legal or equitable, while permitting a person, in whose name a contract is made for the benefit of another, to sue, alone, for a breach. The party equitably entitled may, of course, now, as always, protect his equitable rights by a suit in his own name, for equitable relief. So, too, the common counts have been retained, in substance, as a mode of instituting an action. It will be found, on examination, that their arrangement is such as to be in harmony with the principle of the new practice, which requires the facts to be stated, and not simply the legal consequences from these facts. With the aid of a bill of particulars, it is believed that they will be found to answer in a large number of the cases, occurring most frequently; and where a further statement is required to make the plaintiff's demand more plain, the rules provide that he must furnish it at an early day. But while there are many differences between our Practice Act and the enactments, looking in the same direction, of England and other communities, some important provisions are common to all. All require plain and truthful statements of fact in pleading, and that the real points in issue should appear on the face of the record. All allow the union, in the same action, of legal and equitable demands and defenses. And this being so, in preparing these rules and forms, much aid has been derived from examining the rules of court elsewhere adopted, to give effect to legislation similar to our own, and by noting their practical effect, as illustrated in the reports of judicial decisions in England, and in our sister States. Many rules have been thus selected for adoption, which seemed wise and adapted to our usages, and appear to have operated well in practice elsewhere; and where doubts have, arisen, in other States, as to the true scope and effect of particular provisions, the aim has been to settle the construction by a rule on the subject, and, by so doing, to avoid contests here. In all cases, due consideration has been given to the judicial construction given in other States, when the same result has been reached in all; but, where judicial decisions are conflicting, that construction has been adopted, by a rule which, on the whole, seemed the most.convenient in practice. Although the forms, which have been prepared, are without technicalities, and simply state the cause of action, or defense, in a plain and direct manner, yet as the Bar has been so long accustomed to pleadings of a more artificial character, it seemed proper to furnish a large number of forms, illustrating the new practice. It is, however, hardly necessary to observe that they are designed to guide, not to hamper the profession, and that the only necessary rule of pleading is to give (in appropriate paragraphs) "a plain and concise statement of the material facts." In this part of our work, much use has been made of the "Book of Forms," reported to the Legislature of New York in 1861 by the Commissioners of the Code, and,-by the courtesy of its authors,―of the more extended collections of "Abbott's Forms." It will be perceived that the new rules are somewhat more stringent than those now in force, in regard to the time in which answers shall be filed, and the issues between the parties settled. Under the new Act, this matter will be of more importance than heretofore. One of its leading objects is to spread upon the record the true grounds of claim and defense; and this should be done at an early day, that the parties may be prepared to meet the real issue in dispute between them. In connection with the Rules under the Practice Act, which apply to all courts, it has been thought best to publish a revision of the General Rules of Practice in the Superior Court and Supreme Court of Errors. In these, few changes have been made the principal ones are those for establishing a regular day |