Ireland v. Connecticut Co.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1930 |
| Citation | 112 Conn. 452,152 A. 614 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | IRELAND v. CONNECTICUT CO. et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Christopher L. Avery Judge.
Action by Richard H. Ireland, administrator of the estate of Aurelio D. Ricci, against the Connecticut Company and another. Appeal by the defendant the Connecticut Company from a judgment entered against it in accordance with the rescript of this court in a former appeal (111 Conn. 521, 150 A. 620) of the same case, directing that judgment be entered upon the verdict; the judgment now appealed from being for the amount of the verdict plus interest.
Error and cause remanded, with direction.
J. H. Gardner, Jr., of New Haven, and Edward R Brumley, of New York City, for appellant Connecticut Co.
William F. Tammany, of South Norwalk, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.
This was an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries from the defendant the Connecticut Company and the city of Stamford. A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff against the Connecticut Company and for the city of Stamford. The trial court, upon motion of the company, set the verdict against it aside. Upon appeal (111 Conn. 521, 150 A. 520) to this court the verdict for the city was sustained, but error was found in the setting aside of the verdict against the company, and the case was remanded, with direction to enter judgment upon the verdict against it. The trial court did not enter judgment for the amount found due in the verdict, but for that amount with the addition of interest from the date of the verdict to the time of judgment. The judgment so rendered was not one upon the verdict, and therefore was not in accordance with the mandate of this court, which the trial court was bound to follow. Mazzotta v. Bornstein, 105 Conn. 242, 135 A. 38.
Upon the rendition of the verdict against the company, the plaintiff became legally entitled to have judgment entered thereon. Thereupon he became entitled to receive the money found due, and justice requires that he be compensated for the withholding of it from him. Stoddard v. Sagal, 88 Conn. 346, 350, 85 A. 519. Our statutes recognize this where a motion to set aside a verdict is denied by the trial court, and its action is sustained upon appeal, by requiring the payment of interest from the date of the rendition of the verdict; General Statutes 1930, § 5781; and the same considerations dictate a similar allowance in such a situation as is here presented. The delay in entering judgment was due to the motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank v. Gianopoulos
...the practice is intended merely to make sure that one shall not suffer for an event which he could not avoid.... Ireland v. Connecticut Co., 112 Conn. 452, 454, 152 A. 614 [ (1930) (ordering interest paid nunc pro tunc when trial court erroneously granted motion to set aside verdict) ].” (C......
-
Ginn v. Penobscot Co.
...judgment denying recovery was entered. See Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 1947, 2 Cir., 164 F.2d 21, 23, citing Ireland v. Connecticut Co., 112 Conn. 452, 152 A. 614.We note that under our rule 76(e), unlike the parallel federal rule, the party who has the benefit of a money judgment entered......
-
Briggs v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...for the plaintiff nunc pro tunc as of the day on which the original judgment for the defendant was entered. See Ireland v. Connecticut Co., 112 Conn. 452, 152 A. 614. But see Reed v. Howbert, 10 Cir., 77 F.2d 227; 1 Freeman on Judgments, 4th Ed., sec. 68. It is now too late, however, to rec......
-
Gary Excavating Co. v. Town of North Haven
...sure that one shall not suffer for an event which he could not avoid.' In re Finks, 224 F. 92, 93 (6th Cir.).' Ireland v. Connecticut Co., 112 Conn. 452, 454, 152 A. 614, 615. The question here presented, then, is whether we should, at this time, without requiring further action by the plai......