Atl. Ref. Co. v. O'keefe.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1945
• Citation: 131 Conn. 528,41 A.2d 109
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ATLANTIC REFINING CO. v. O'KEEFE.

131 Conn. 528

41 A.2d 109

ATLANTIC REFINING CO.

v.O'KEEFE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 11, 1945.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; McEvoy, Judge.

Summary process proceeding by the Atlantic Refining Company against W. John O'Keefe to recover possession of leased premises. Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory judgment and money damages in excess of jurisdiction of the justice of the peace, and the case was transferred to the superior court, where plaintiff's plea in abatement challenging jurisdiction of the court was granted, judgment was rendered erasing the case from the docket, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Charles G. Albom, of New Haven (Nelson Harris, of New Haven, on the brief) for appellant (defendant).

George E. Beers and William L. Beers, both of New Haven, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

BROWN, Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action in the ordinary form for summary process upon a parol lease, Practice Book 1934, p. 340, before a justice of the peace, to recover possession of premises in New Haven rented to the defendant and used for a gasoline station. The defendant filed an answer which, in addition to a denial, included a special defense alleging facts indicating that the lease had not expired and substantial expenditures made in reliance thereon, and also a counterclaim which by amendment sought a declaratory judgment and $50,000 damages. The defendant filed a motion, predicated upon § 5553 of the General Statutes as amended by § 823f of the 1941 Supplement, and accompanied by a bond, to transfer the action to the Superior Court. Upon the transmission of the record, certified by the justice of the peace, to the Superior Court, the plaintiff pleaded in abatement and to the jurisdiction on the ground that such a counterclaim is not admissible in a summary process action and therefore can afford no basis of transfer under the statute. The Superior Court sustained the plea and rendered judgment erasing the case from the docket, from which the defendant has appealed.

The principal question for determination is whether, in an action of summary process brought before a justice of the peace, the defendant may interpose a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment and money damages and thereby secure a transfer of the action to the Superior Court under § 823f of the 1941 Supplement. This section, which treats the justice court as a ‘court,’ as applied to this case, provides for the transfer of ‘any action’ pending before a justice of the peace to the Superior Court on motion of the defendant when the allegations of the answer claiming judgment in his favor carry the case beyond the jurisdiction of the justice. Whether the broad language of the statute is applicable to an action of summary process depends upon the proper interpretation of it in the light of other pertinent statutory provisions.

The action of summary process is a special statutory proceeding. General Statutes, Cum.Supp.1939, § 1429e; Supp.1943, § 730g. As utilized by the plaintiff in this case, it provides a ‘remedy to enable landlords to obtain possession of leased premises without suffering the delay, loss and expense to which, under the common-law actions, they might be subjected by tenants wrongfully holding over their terms. 1 Swift's Dig., s. p. 511.’ Marsh v. Burhans, 79 Conn. 306, 308, 64 A. 739. ‘The proceeding was not only intended to be summary but conclusive.’ Banks v. Porter, 39 Conn. 307, 308. Pursuant to this intent, § 5974 of the General Statutes provides that no appeal shall be allowed, and § 5980 imposes strict limitations upon resort to writ of error. See Marsh v. Burhans, supra, 79 Conn. at page 309, 64 A. 739. Any right of counterclaim which the defendant has exists solely under the provision in § 5511 that: ‘In any case in which the defendant has either in law or in equity or in both a counterclaim * * * against the plaintiff's demand, he may have the benefit of any such * * * counterclaim by pleading the same as such in his answer, and demanding judgment accordingly; * * * provided no counterclaim * * * merely equitable, shall be available in any action before a justice of the peace.’

To save inviolate, however, the expeditious possessory procedure of summary process to which we have referred, § 5535, entitled ‘Procedure in certain actions not changed,’ expressly provides that § 5511 ‘shall not affect * * * proceedings in * * * summary process.’ These two sect...