Venue & Jurisdiction

Veni, Vidi, Vici[1]

            “I came, I saw, I conquered” ….and decided upon a venue.[2]  Choice of the proper court is essential to obtaining a judgment which will be valid in this state and which will, if it proves necessary, be accorded recognition in other states.  Involved in the choice of court are three requirements which are related but which must be carefully distinguished: (a) jurisdiction over the person or property of the defendant; (b) competency of the court to hear the type of controversy involved, frequently called “jurisdiction over the subject matter”; and (c) venue.

            The question concerned in jurisdiction is that of the power of the State of Connecticut, acting through one of its courts, to render a judgment binding the defendant or his property.  Since the Superior Court is now the sole court of original jurisdiction for all causes of action (civil or criminal) except probate matters, choice of the proper forum is signifantly simplified.[3]    The remaining question is that of venue.  Statutes provide that no cause of action shall fail on the ground that it was made returnable to an improper location.[4]  The return of a cause of action to an improper court location does not affect the competency of the court to hear the matter.

            The concept of venue derives from early English common law.  When the pleadings were closed and an issue of fact raised before the full bench of judges at Westminster, England, a writ was issued to the sheriff of one of the counties to cause a jury “to come” (from the Latin: venire) from his county.  The county from which the jury was to come established the “venue” of the action.[5]  In the early period, venue was determined in the real actions (trying rights in land) by the location of the land and in personal actions by the place where the events occurred which gave rise to the dispute.  A jury of one county could not try any matter arising in another county.  This rule was formulated because of the constitution of the ancient jury who were but witnesses to prove or disprove the allegations of the parties.  With the gradual change in the jury system, it became proper in certain classes of cases to choose jurors from a county or place other than than in which the cause of action arose, and in such cases suit could be brought at a place other than where the cause of action arose.[6]

            It is important to distinguish “venue” from “jurisdiction,” as the terms may not be used synonymously. Jurisdiction deals with the power of a court to hear and dispose of a given case. In the federal system, it involves questions of constitutional dimension concerning the basic division of judicial power among the states and between state and federal courts. Venue is of a distinctly lower level of importance, and is intended for the convenience of the litigants.[7]  It is possible for jurisdiction to exist though venue in a particular district is improper, and it is possible for a suit to be brought in the appropriate venue though it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The most important difference between venue and jurisdiction is that a party may consent to be sued in a district that otherwise would be an improper venue, and it waives its objection to venue if it fails to assert it promptly. This is in striking contrast to subject-matter jurisdiction, which cannot be conferred by the parties, if it has not been granted by Congress, whether by consent, waiver, or estoppel.[8]