Holtz v. Riddell
| Citation | 126 A. 333,101 Conn. 416 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 21 October 1924 |
| Parties | HOLTZ v. RIDDELL ET AL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; George E. Hinman Judge.
Action by Minnie Holtz against Andrew B. Riddell and another on a replevin bond tried to the court. Judgment for defendants from which plaintiff appeals. No error.
The complaint in this action, brought against the defendants as principal and surety on a replevin bond, alleges an institution of an action of replevin by Riddell, a defendant in the present action, in the court of common pleas for Hartford county, wherein there was replevied to him and taken from the possession of the plaintiff a certain automobile. The plaintiff in this action, defendant in replevin, appeared in the latter action and filed an answer in which any title or interest in the plaintiff (Riddell) was denied, and ownership of defendant asserted. In addition thereto, the defendant in said action (present plaintiff) filed a counterclaim in which she alleged that " the defendant at the time of the taking mentioned in the complaint was and still is the owner and entitled to immediate possession to [of] the goods and chattels described in the above complaint," and claimed as relief judgment for return of the automobile and $1,000 damages, all of which appears from certain exhibits in the present case made part of the defendants' answer. The counterclaim follows exactly, except for the verbal variation indicated in the above quotation, the form set forth in P. B 1922, page 564, form 546. In the action of replevin, tried to the jury, a verdict was rendered for the defendant upon the counterclaim for the recovery of the automobile and $1 damages, as appears from the judgment file, which also recites that the parties were at issue to the jury as on file and that the jury found the issues for the defendant.
The answer to the counterclaim does not appear in the record on appeal, as should have been the case; but it was admitted upon the hearing in this court that such an answer was filed and the allegations of the counterclaim thereby put in issue. Judgment was rendered on the verdict for the defendant Holtz to recover possession of the goods replevied and $1 damages and costs. Afterward this judgment was paid to the defendant (present plaintiff) and a certificate of satisfaction thereof filed in court.
Most of these facts are alleged in the complaint in the present action containing two counts and admitted in the answer, which adds the facts that the judgment was rendered on the defendant's counterclaim in the replevin action. The answer also contains a second defense which sets up more at length the counterclaim, the judgment, and satisfaction thereof, and avers that by reason of this judgment the matters alleged in the complaint have all been decided and determined in the replevin action, and are res adjudicata.
The plaintiff in the present action demurred to paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the second defense, which embody the facts upon which the plea of res adjudicata is based, in the following terms:
(1) That there are no allegations alleging that the question as to plaintiff's damage was actually and directly in issue and judicially determined in the replevin action.
(2) That there are no allegations that the question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to have any damages was in issue so that the jury could have passed on that question.
(3) That the verdict for the plaintiff in the replevin action to recover $1 damages does not constitute a judgment as to the plaintiff's damage.
(4) That the verdict in the replevin action was not res adjudicata as to the question of the plaintiff's damage.
The court overruled this demurrer, the plaintiff refused to plead over, and judgment was rendered for the defendants, from which plaintiff appeals, assigning as error the ruling of the trial court upon the grounds of demurrer above stated.
Morris G. Cohen, of Hartford, for appellant.
Edward J. Daly, of Hartford, for appellees.
KEELER, J. (after stating the facts as above).
The plaintiff claims that the pleadings in the replevin action were not of such a nature as to put in issue the question and amount of the damages recovered by Minnie Holtz as defendant therein, and that defendants' second defense in the present action does not contain allegations sufficient to show that the damages sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Grimes
...of the judgment of the Circuit Court and 'is conclusive as to (of) its contents (unless or) until corrected.' Holtz v. Riddell, 101 Conn. 416, 421, 126 A. 333, 335; Sisk v. Meagher, 82 Conn. 376, 377, 73 A. 785; Varanelli v. Luddy, 130 Conn. 74, 78, 32 A.2d 61; see s.c., 134 Conn. 191, 56 A......
-
Varanelli v. Luddy.
...v. Matz, 72 Conn. 610, 613, 45 A. 494, 48 L.R.A. 217; and is conclusive of its contents unless or until corrected, Holtz v. Riddell, 101 Conn. 416, 421, 126 A. 333; Sisk v. Meagher, 82 Conn. 376, 377, 73 A. 785. If there is a judicial error in the record, it may be corrected upon motion and......
-
City of Bridgeport v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
... ... Kappellas, 83 Ind.App ... 339, 146 N.E. 858; [105 Conn. 23] Hafner v. U.S. Fidelity ... & Guaranty Co., 126 Wash. 670, 219 P. 16; Holtz v ... Riddell et al., 101 Conn. 416, 126 A. 333. Levick v ... Norton, 51 Conn. 461, was an action of scire facias ... brought under a statute ... ...