Creative Eye, Inc. v. Raum

• Citation: 362 A.2d 845,168 Conn. 560
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 03 June 1975
• Parties: CREATIVE EYE, INC. v. Jason H. RAUM. Jason H. RAUM v. CREATIVE EYE, INC.

Page 845

362 A.2d 845

168 Conn. 560

CREATIVE EYE, INC. v. Jason H. RAUM.

Jason H. RAUM v. CREATIVE EYE, INC.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

June 3, 1975.

Harold L. Rosnick, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, were Sigmund L. Miller, Bridgeport, Jerrold W. Engelman, Westport, and Samuel Engelman, Stratford, for appellant (defendant and plaintiff Jason H. Raum).

James F. Kenney, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was John J. Graham, Trumbull, for appellee (plaintiff and defendant Creative Eye, Inc.).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, MacDONALD, LONGO and BARBER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The two cases were tried together and involved a claim by the plaintiff lessen in the first case for damages arising out of a leasehold contract and a claim by the plaintiff lessor in the second case for rent alleged to be due under the leasehold contract. Judgment was rendered by the court for the lessee, the plaintiff in the first case and the defendant in the second case. Appeal was taken by the defendant in the first case from both judgments.

The trial of the two cases commenced on July 5, 1973, in the session of the court which ran from April 3, 1973, to July 9, 1973. The next session of the court commenced on July 10, 1973, and terminated on September 3, 1973. Judgment in both cases was rendered on September 19, 1973. On October 3, 1973, the appellant in both cases filed a combined appeal from the judgments rendered and moved for an extension of time to file his requests for finding and draft finding, which was granted by the court. On October 25, 1973, the appellant filed a motion pursuant to General Statutes § 51-29 to set the judgments aside and for new trials in that such judgments were rendered after the expiration of the session of the court next secceeding the session at which trial was commenced.

A judgment is required to be rendered before the end of the session of the court next succeeding the session at which it was commenced. General Statutes § 51-29; Bogaert v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 162 Conn. 532, 536, 294 A.2d 573; Spelke v. Shaw, 117 Conn. 639, 644, 169 A. 787. A judgment rendered thereafter is voidable but not void. Borden v. Westport, 112 Conn. 152, 154, 151 A. 512; Lawrence v. Connavan, 76 Conn. 303, 306, 56 A. 556. The lateness of a decision may be waived by consent or by conduct of the parties. Hurlbutt v. Hatheway, 139 Conn. 258, 263, 93 A.2d 161; Whitaker v. Cannon Mills Co., 132 Conn. 434, 438, 45 A.2d 120. On the question of waiver subsequent to judgment after a late judgment is rendered, 'the most that can reasonably be required is objection seasonably made after the filing of the decision.' Bogaert v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 162 Conn. 538, 294 A.2d 577. The record reveals that there was no consent and that objection was made prior to the filing of the request for finding and draft finding, with no additional hearing or pleadings other than a request for extension of time to file the appeal papers. ...