Lawrence v. Cannavan

Decision Date18 December 1903
Citation56 A. 556,76 Conn. 303
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Leverett M. Hubbard, Judge.

Action of account by Joseph Lawrence against Michael Cannavan. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Charles S. Hamilton, for appellant.

Richard H. Tynor and Arthur G. Fesseuden, for appellee.

HALL, J. This action was brought to the January term, 1897, of the court of common pleas of New Haven county, terms of which are required by statute to be held on the first Monday of January, March, May, and November, and on the third Monday of September. The Judgment file, dated July 23, 1903, states that the case came by legal continuances to that time, when the parties appeared and were fully hoard, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for $538.90 and costs. In the finding the following facts appear: The evidence in the case was heard by the court (Hubbard, J.) on the 8th and 9th of October, 1902. For convenience of counsel it was agreed on the last day of the hearing that written arguments should be submitted, and that oral arguments might be made at a later date, if desired by the court or by counsel. Written arguments wore submitted by both parties on the 24th of October, 1902. The court requested oral arguments to be made, but fixed no time for hearing such arguments, until, on a regular assignment day, the case, without objection from either party, was assigned for hearing on June 12, 1903, but, at the request of counsel for defendant, was continued from that date, from time to time, until July 3, 1903, when, at a special session of the court, held by Judge Hubbard for the purpose of hearing oral arguments, both parties appeared, and the defendant objected to further proceedings in the case, and declined to argue the case. The court thereupon on said day heard the oral argument of the plaintiff, and on the 23d of July, 1903, rendered judgment as aforesaid.

It is claimed that under the statute such judgment is either void, for want of jurisdiction, or erroneous, because rendered after the close of the next term after that at which the trial commenced, and based upon evidence taken several terms before that at which the judgment was rendered. Section 510, Gen. St. 1902, which was in force at the time of the trial of this case, provides that "any judge of the superior court or of the court of common pleas, who shall have commenced the trial of any civil cause shall have power to continue such trial and render judgment after the expiration of the term or session of the court at which such trial commenced; but such trial shall be ended and judgment rendered before the close of the next term or session." Upon its face the judgment in question is neither void nor erroneous, since it appears by the judgment file that the case was regularly continued to, and heard at, the terra when final judgment was rendered. The judgment is not void for want of jurisdiction, upon the facts stated in the finding. The court appears to have been regularly in session when the judgment was rendered. The case had not been decided, but was still pending before a court which had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties. The parties, of course, bad the right, notwithstanding the statute, to retry their case in July and have it decided, and for that purpose to waive the reproduction of the evidence previously presented before the same judge, and to consent that the court might hear the arguments and decide the case in July upon the evidence heard by him in October. Jaques v. Bridgeport Horse Railroad Co., 43 Conn. 32-34; Shackelford v. Miller, 91 N. C. 181; Morrison v. Bank, 27 La. Ann. 401. Since the court, by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Foote v. Comm'r of Correction, 31008.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 2010
    ...may "be implied ... from the silence of the parties until the judgment has been rendered.... " (Emphasis added.) Lawrence v. Cannavan, 76 Conn. 303, 306, 56 A. 556 (1903); see also O.J. Mann Electric Services, Inc. v. The Village at Kensington Place Ltd. Partnership, 99 Conn.App. 367, 372, ......
  • Remax Right Choice v. Aryeh, 26571.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • April 10, 2007
    ...a late judgment as voidable rather than as void; Borden v. Westport, 112 Conn. 152, 154, 151 A. 512 (1930); Lawrence v. Cannavan, 76 Conn. 303, 306, 56 A. 556 (1903); and have permitted the lateness of a judgment to be waived by the conduct or the consent of the parties. See, e.g., Hurlbutt......
  • Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Costle
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1980
    ...93 A.2d 161; Spelke v. Shaw, 117 Conn. 639, 644, 169 A. 787; Cheshire Brass Co. v. Wilson, 86 Conn. 551, 560, 86 A. 26; Lawrence v. Cannavan, 76 Conn. 303, 307, 56 A. 556. It is conceded that the judgment was not rendered within the time prescribed by § 51-29 nor has the plaintiff made any ......
  • Mcburney v. Peter Paquin James R.G. Mcburney v. Antoinette Verderame.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • October 4, 2011
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT