Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc.
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Before O'SULLIVAN; BALDWIN |
| Citation | 132 A.2d 573,144 Conn. 389 |
| Parties | Harry E. JENKINS v. BISHOP APARTMENTS, Inc. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 28 May 1957 |
Page 573
v.
BISHOP APARTMENTS, Inc.
Page 574
Nelson Harris, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph R. Apter, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
[144 Conn. 390] Milton A. Bernblum, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, were Marvin C. Gold and Annette E. P. Gold, New Haven, for appellee (defendant).
Before [144 Conn. 389] O'SULLIVAN, C. J., and BALDWIN, WYNNE, DALY and KING, JJ.
[144 Conn. 390] BALDWIN, Associate Justice.
The defendant brought an action against the plaintiff and his wife for unpaid rent. Process was served on them on March 20, 1953, and returned to the City Court of New Haven on April 14. A default was entered on May 1 and, after a hearing in damages, judgment was rendered on May 22, 1953. Incorporated in and made part of the judgment was an order for payment to be made by the plaintiff to the clerk of the City Court as a method under the statute of satisfying the judgment by instalments. General Statutes § 8102; Practice Book, § 46. The plaintiff and his wife had due notice of these proceedings. On April 9, 1953, the plaintiff filed a petition in bankruptcy but failed to schedule the defendant as a creditor. In June, 1953, the order for payment not having been complied with, the defendant obtained an execution which the court has found was satisfied on or about August 1, 1953. Cum.Sup.1955, § 3202d. The plaintiff has assigned error in this finding. The sheriff's return on the execution in the original action states that the execution was satisfied in full on January 22, 1954. The return is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Cugno v. Kaelin, 138 Conn. 341, 343, 84 A.2d 576; Hartley v. Vitiello, 113 Conn. 74, 79, 154 A. 255. The finding is corrected accordingly. On August 5, 1953, the plaintiff amended the schedule in his petition in bankruptcy to include the defendant's claim. On November 20, and again on December 21, the plaintiff applied to the City Court for a recall of the execution and a stay of proceedings, both of which the court denied. He then instituted the present [144 Conn. 391] action and specifically asked for the opening of the judgment in the original action, the recall of the execution, and the granting of such further legal and equitable relief as might be appropriate. The court found for the defendant and the plaintiff has appealed.
Before we attempt to resolve the legal issues it is necessary to consider the manner in which they have been presented. Basically, the plaintiff is seeking the correction of errors which he claims were committed by the trial court in the original action to recover unpaid rent brought against him by this defendant. He failed, however, to appeal under General Statutes, § 8003 or §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Barber, No. 455605 (CT 5/20/2005), 455605
...advantage of a discharge in bankruptcy, a defendant must specially plead the discharge as a defense. Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 392, 132 A.2d 573 (1957); see Krondes v. O'Boy, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 93 0135694......
-
Mejias v. Sebastian, No. FA98-0116648 (CT 12/1/2004), FA98-0116648
...may be introduced to show otherwise." Collins v. Scholz, 34 Conn.Sup. 501, 502, 373 A.2d 200 (1976); Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 390, 132 A.2d 573 (1957); Cugno v. Kaelin, 138 Conn. 341, 343, 84 A.2d 576 (1951); see also Clover v. Urban, 108 Conn. 13, 17, 142 A. 389 (......
-
State v. McKnight
...error on the same basis. See Machiz v. Homer Harman, Inc., 146 Conn. 523, 525, 152 A.2d 629 (1959); Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 391, 132 A.2d 573 (1957); Alexander v. Alexander, 107 Conn. 101, 106, 139 A. 685 (1927); Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 42. Moreover, the interes......
-
Lashgari v. Lashgari, 12293
...153 Conn. 545, 219 A.2d 225 (1966); Milestan v. Tisi, 140 Conn. 464, 472-73, 101 A.2d 504 (1953); see Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 132 A.2d 573 (1957); see also Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn. 543 (1850). The plaintiff's postjudgment claim of payment necessarily had to fail ......
-
Miller v. Barber, No. 455605 (CT 5/20/2005), No. 455605
...advantage of a discharge in bankruptcy, a defendant must specially plead the discharge as a defense. Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 392, 132 A.2d 573 (1957); see Krondes v. O'Boy, Superior Court, judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 93 0135694......
-
State v. McKnight
...error on the same basis. See Machiz v. Homer Harman, Inc., 146 Conn. 523, 525, 152 A.2d 629 (1959); Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 391, 132 A.2d 573 (1957); Alexander v. Alexander, 107 Conn. 101, 106, 139 A. 685 (1927); Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. § 42. Moreover, the interes......
-
Mejias v. Sebastian, No. FA98-0116648 (CT 12/1/2004), No. FA98-0116648
...may be introduced to show otherwise." Collins v. Scholz, 34 Conn.Sup. 501, 502, 373 A.2d 200 (1976); Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 390, 132 A.2d 573 (1957); Cugno v. Kaelin, 138 Conn. 341, 343, 84 A.2d 576 (1951); see also Clover v. Urban, 108 Conn. 13, 17, 142 A. 389 (......
-
Lashgari v. Lashgari, No. 12293
...153 Conn. 545, 219 A.2d 225 (1966); Milestan v. Tisi, 140 Conn. 464, 472-73, 101 A.2d 504 (1953); see Jenkins v. Bishop Apartments, Inc., 144 Conn. 389, 132 A.2d 573 (1957); see also Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn. 543 (1850). The plaintiff's postjudgment claim of payment necessarily had to fail ......