Lewis v. Rosen
| Decision Date | 08 May 1962 |
| Citation | 181 A.2d 592,149 Conn. 734 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Armand F. LEWIS et al., v. Abraham A. ROSEN et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Colin Gunn, Westport, and Alan H. Nevas, Westport, for appellants (plaintiffs).
Robert A. Slavitt, Norwalk, with whom, on the brief, was Aaron Weitz, Norwalk, for appellee (defendant Dreamy Hollow Apartments Corporation).
Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.
The plaintiffs are forty-two persons who allege in their complaint that they are tenants of apartments in buildings owned or operated by the defendants. They seek to recover rents which they allege were paid to the defendant Dreamy Hollow Apartments Corporation and were collected from them by the defendants in violation of General Statutes §§ 19-370 and 19-371 which are part of the Tenement House Act. The court sustained a demurrer by Dreamy Hollow Apartments Corporation to the complaint and rendered judgment for that defendant when the plaintiffs failed to plead over. The plaintiffs have appealed from the judgment.
At the outset, we are confronted with a question of jurisdiction which must first be determined, although it was not raised by the defendants. Devine Bros., Inc. v. International Brotherhood, 145 Conn. 77, 79, 139 A.2d 60; Riley v. Board of Police Commissioners, 145 Conn. 1, 6, 137 A.2d 759; Bardes v. Zoning Board, 141 Conn. 317, 318, 106 A.2d 160. Schedule A, attached to and made a part of the complaint, lists the amount of rent which each plaintiff seeks to recover. The amounts range from $162.50 to $1458. The total amount alleged to have been paid by all of the forty-two tenants is $35,131. The plaintiffs claim $45,000 damages.
The Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions in which the matter in demand exceeds $10,000, and concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Common Pleas of actions in which the matter in demand exceeds $5000 but does not exceed $10,000. General Statutes §§ 52-10, 52-28. It follows that, unless the matter in demand in this case exceeds $5000, the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter, in which event we also lack jurisdiction and may act on our own motion to dismiss the action. Masone v. Zoning Board, 148 Conn. 551, 554, 172 A.2d 891; Willard v. West Hartford, 135 Conn. 303, 306, 63 A.2d 847; Felletter v. Thompson, 133 Conn. 277, 280, 50 A.2d 81.
Generally, the matter in demand is determined by the amount of damages claimed in the complaint; Atlantic Refining Co. v. Schoen, 118 Conn. 26, 28, 170 A. 478; but where several separate claims are joined in one suit, the jurisdiction of the court is ordinarily determined by the amount...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Life and Cas. Co. v. Braccidiferro
...This is so because it is considered that the limitation merely acts as a bar to a remedy otherwise available. Lewis v. Rosen, 149 Conn. 734, 735, 181 A.2d 592 (1962)." Moore v. McNamara, supra, 201 Conn. at 22, 513 A.2d Aetna is not unconstitutionally divested of its substantive rights with......
-
Juvenile Appeal (85-BC), In re
...Commission, 158 Conn. 364, 384, 260 A.2d 596 (1969); Tellier v. Zarnowski, 157 Conn. 370, 373, 254 A.2d 568 (1969); Lewis v. Rosen, 149 Conn. 734, 735, 181 A.2d 592 (1962); see State v. Malkowski, 189 Conn. 101, 104-105, 454 A.2d 275 (1983); Liebeskind v. Waterbury, 142 Conn. 155, 159, 112 ......
-
Moore v. McNamara
...This is so because it is considered that the limitation merely acts as a bar to a remedy otherwise available. Lewis v. Rosen, 149 Conn. 734, 735, 181 A.2d 592 (1962). Where a statute of limitations is procedural, it is subject to waiver; unless specifically pleaded it is deemed waived and t......
-
Pollokoff v. Maryland Nat. Bank
...make up the required jurisdictional amount, but each separate claim furnishes the jurisdictional test. Accord, e. g., Lewis v. Rosen, 149 Conn. 734, 181 A.2d 592 (1962); State ex rel. City of West Palm Beach v. Chillingworth, 100 Fla. 489, 129 So. 816 (1930); Albion Elevator Co. v. Chicago ......