Gryskiewicz v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 15 March 1960 |
| Citation | 159 A.2d 163,147 Conn. 260 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Walter F. GRYSKIEWICZ v. Paul E. MORGAN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Richard H. Simons, Milford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Howard F. Zoarski, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was T. Holmes Bracken, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, MELLITZ and SHEA, JJ.
In January, 1950, the plaintiff instituted this action in negligence to recover for property damage to his automobile resulting from a collision with an automobile operated by the defendant. The judgment file discloses that it was not until about eight years later that issue was joined on the allegations of the complaint. A counterclaim was then filed, and issue was joined on its allegations about six weeks later. Thereafter, the action was specially assigned for trial on May 14, 1958, which was nearly two months after the pleadings had been closed. Neither party appeared on the trial date, and the court entered a judgment of nonsuit against the plaintiff on the complaint and against the defendant on the counterclaim. The plaintiff filed a motion to open the judgment of nonsuit. From the denial of the motion the plaintiff has appealed.
The plaintiff requested no finding, and none was made. Therefore we have nothing before us, outside the bare record, on which to review the action of the court. Practice Book, § 385. The facts as they appear of record have already been summarized. They disclose nothing as to why the plaintiff failed to appear for trial on the day the case was assigned, in accordance with Practice Book, §§ 133 and 136, or why a nonsuit was not properly entered under § 133. White's Appeal, 75 Conn. 314, 318, 53 A. 582; Automotive Twins, Inc. v. Klein, 138 Conn. 28, 33, 82 A.2d 146. The nonsuit having been entered for failure to appear on the trial date, and not for failure to make out a prima facie case under § 52-210 of the General Statutes, it was a final judgment from which an appeal lay. Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 11. And the subsequent motion to set aside the nonsuit was governed by § 52-212 rather than by § 52-211. Bassett v. Foster, 116 Conn. 29, 31, 163 A. 456; Automotive Twins, Inc. v. Klein, supra; Stanley v. City of Hartford, 140 Conn. 643, 648, 103 A.2d 147.
The judgment of nonsuit should have been opened if, but only if, in its sound discretion the court found that the plaintiff had shown 'reasonable cause' under § 52-212. Since there is no finding, the plaintiff, on this record, has shown no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lashgari v. Lashgari
...sufficient to sustain the judgment. See Guglielmo v. Klausner Supply Co., 158 Conn. 308, 314, 259 A.2d 608 (1969); Gryskiewicz v. Morgan, 147 Conn. 260, 159 A.2d 163 (1960); Silverman v. Swift & Co., 141 Conn. 450, 107 A.2d 277 (1954); Maltbie, supra, § 340 and cases cited therein; see also......
-
Hickey v. Commissioner of Correction
...decision appears to have been based, which are consistent with the facts stated in the parties' briefs. See Gryskiewicz v. Morgan, 147 Conn. 260, 261, 159 A.2d 163 (1960) (where plaintiff requested no finding and none was made, only record available for review). In the absence of an articul......
-
Grondin v. Curi
...from a trial court's judgment of nonsuit for failure to state a prima facie case. See General Statutes § 52-211; Gryskiewicz v. Morgan, 147 Conn. 260, 261, 159 A.2d 163 (1960). 14. "[T]o prevail in a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must prove (1) the requisite standard of care for......
-
New Milford Block Co. v. Ericson
...a prima facie case under § 52-210 of the General Statutes, becomes a final judgment from which an appeal will lie. Gryskiewicz v. Morgan, 147 Conn. 260, 261, 159 A.2d 163; see § 52-211. Here, however, the plaintiff would gain little relief from our law in this respect, for Practice Book § 9......