Clover Farms Inc. v. Kielwasser .
| Decision Date | 19 May 1948 |
| Citation | 59 A.2d 550,134 Conn. 622 |
| Parties | CLOVER FARMS, Inc. v. KIELWASSER (two cases). |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Devlin, Judge.
Actions by Clover Farms, Inc., against W. G. Kielwasser. Summary judgments for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. On plaintiff's motion to erase the appeals.
Motion granted.
D. Harold Cotter, of Bridgeport, for the motion.
Charles G. Albom and Nelson Harris, of New Haven, against the motion.
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
In each of these cases the Court of Common Pleas rendered a summary judgment for the plaintiff on December 17, 1947; on December 30, 1947, the defendant filed an appeal; and on January 5, 1948, the trial court, on motion of the plaintiff, opened the judgment. The ground of the motion to erase is that there is now no final judgment in effect from which an appeal would lie. The defendant does not question that the motion to erase is the proper procedure to present the matter, nor does he contend that it should not be granted. His claim is that the erasure of the case from the docket should be conditioned upon the payment to him of the costs and expenses incurred by him in taking the appeal. As in the case of the Superior Court, there is but one term of the Court of Common Pleas held annually in each county beginning in September. General Statutes, Sup.1941, § 761f. The trial court had authority to open the judgment when it did, and the fact that an appeal had been filed did not prevent such action. Thompson v. Towle, 98 Conn. 738, 741, 120 A. 503. Whether it should do so or not rested in its discretion. Kaiser v. Second National Bank of New Haven, 123 Conn. 248, 255, 193 A. 761. It might, if justice required, have conditioned the granting of the motion upon the payment to the defendant of costs and expenses properly incurred in taking the appeal before the motion to open was made. Because in such a situation the trial court is familiar with or can ascertain the facts relevant to the justice of imposing such a condition, it is the proper tribunal to pass on the matter. As the term of court still continues, it is not too late for it in this case to revoke its order and make a new order upon such a condition, if the circumstances justify it.
The motion to erase is granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hiss v. Hiss.
...of a court to open a judgment during the term prevent an appeal from it, unless such action is in fact taken. Clover Farms, Inc. v. Kielwasser, 134 Conn. 622, 59 A.2d 550. We conclude that the order for temporary support in this case was a final judgment from which an appeal lies. This conc......
-
Ahneman v. Ahneman
...of any degree of substantive connection between the postappeal motion and the issue on appeal. See Clover Farms, Inc. v. Kielwasser, 134 Conn. 622, 623, 59 A.2d 550 (1948) ("trial court had authority to open the judgment ... and the fact that an appeal had been filed did not prevent such ac......
-
Ral Mgmt., Inc. v. Valley View Associates, No. 17438.
...166 Conn. 642, 646, 353 A.2d 706 (1974); Ostroski v. Ostroski, 135 Conn. 509, 511, 66 A.2d 599 (1949); Clover Farms, Inc. v. Kielwasser, 134 Conn. 622, 623, 59 A.2d 550 (1948); Simpson v. Y.M.C.A. of Bridgeport, 118 Conn. 414, 417-18, 172 A. 855 (1934). Therefore, with limited exceptions; s......
-
Webster Bank v. Zak
...mortgage. In support of its argument in that regard, MFR relies on Practice Book § 10-61 in conjunction with Clover Farms, Inc. v. Kielwasser, 134 Conn. 622, 59 A.2d 550 (1948), and Antman v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 117 Conn. 230, 167 A. 715 (1933), overruled in part, Buck v. Morris ......