Lithuanian Brotherhelp Soc'y St. Wicentus v. Tunila

• Decision Date: 02 June 1908
• Citation: 80 Conn. 642,70 A. 25
• Parties: LITHUANIAN BROTHERHELP SOCIETY ST. WICENTUS v. TUNILA.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

70 A. 25

80 Conn. 642

LITHUANIAN BROTHERHELP SOCIETY ST. WICENTUS

v. TUNILA.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 2, 1908.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Litchfield County; Gideon H. Welch, Judge.

Action by the Lithuanian Brotherhelp Society St. Wicentus against Joseph Tunila to have a judgment set aside, and defendant enjoined from enforcing it. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Thomas J. Wall, for appellant.

Samuel A. Herman, for appellee.

HALL, J. The plaintiff is a voluntary association, of which the defendant is a member. The complaint alleges, substantially, these facts: The defendant brought an action against this plaintiff to recover alleged "sick benefits," returnable before a justice of the peace on the 12th of June, 1907, the complaint in which was not otherwise served than by leaving, on the 7th of said June, an attested copy at the place of abode of one Petrofski, the secretary of the society, and obtained judgment therein by default, on said return day, for $50 damages and $5.76 costs, which he threatens to enforce. The said secretary of the plaintiff society was a foreigner and did not well understand and could not read English. He understood from his wife, and from what she informed him the officer leaving the copy had told her, that the copy was a notice to call at the office of the attorney for the defendant, Tunila, which he did. The attorney informed him that he had the claim in question against the society for collection, hut did not inform him that any suit had been brought upon it, but led Petrofski to believe that the society had better consider the matter, and settle the claim without litigation. At the same time Petrofski informed the attorney that Tunila had no legal claim against the society, for the reason that, under the constitution and by-laws of the society, it was necessary for Tunila to procure the certificate of one or more reputable physicians that he had been unable to perform manual labor, and was therefore entitled to benefits, and that the physicians would not so certify, but had stated that Tunila was not entitled to benefits. The plaintiff had no knowledge of the pendency of said action before the justice of the peace, nor that said judgment had been rendered, until after June 12th, when he asked said attorney to permit the default to be opened, and to allow the society to present its defense, which the attorney refused to do. The plaintiff society has a good defense against the claim of Tunila, and it would be inequitable to enforce said judgment against it. The complaint asks that the judgment be annulled and set aside, and that the defendant be enjoined from enforcing it.

The trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to expunge the...