Atlantic Refining Co. v. Schoen

• Decision Date: 02 January 1934
• Citation: 170 A. 478,118 Conn. 26
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: ATLANTIC REFINING CO. v. SCHOEN.

170 A. 478

118 Conn. 26

ATLANTIC REFINING CO. v. SCHOEN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 2, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; John Richards Booth Judge.

Action by the Atlantic Refining Company against Oscar W. Schoen for breach of contract tried to the court. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Error and case remanded, with directions to erase it from docket.

Charles A. Hallock, of Danbury, and Frank L. Wilder, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

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

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY, JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

The complaint alleges that the parties in this action entered into a written agreement a copy of which was annexed. Under it the plaintiff was to furnish and lend to the defendant certain equipment for the sale of gasoline; the defendant agreed to purchase all gasoline handled through this equipment from the plaintiff; and if he failed to purchase at least thirty thousand gallons of gasoline or motor fuel yearly he would be considered in default and the plaintiff might either retake the equipment and become entitled to receive $475, which it was agreed was the fair and reasonable expense incurred, or it might allow the equipment to remain and charge the defendant $891.99, the agreed value of the system, and upon the payment of that sum title to it would pass to the plaintiff. The complaint further alleged that the defendant failed to purchase at least thirty thousand gallons of gasoline or motor fuel for more than a year before October 10, 1932, and on that day the plaintiff declared him in default; and that, by reason of this default, the liquidated damages provided in the contract were due. The complaint claimed $1,000 damages. The action was brought to the superior court, the writ being dated October 25, 1932.

The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover $489.25. The defendant contends that the superior court was without jurisdiction over the cause of action alleged. In any action where the matter in demand exceeds $500 but does not exceed $2,000 the superior court has concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of common pleas. General Statutes, § 5439. Ordinarily the matter in demand is determined by the amount of damages claimed in the complaint; but where it appears from its allegations that the plaintiff cannot recover the damages claimed, then the matter in demand will be the highest sum which the plaintiff upon the face of the complaint appears...