Padaigis v. Kane
| Decision Date | 07 February 1939 |
| Citation | 4 A.2d 335,125 Conn. 727 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | PADAIGIS v. KANE. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas for Judicial District of Waterbury, New Haven County; Miles F. McNiff, Deputy Judge.
Action by Stanley Padaigis as payee of a promissory note against Maggie Kane, the maker, tried to the court. Judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.
No error.
Francis P. Guilfoile, Lawrence J. Matzkin, and Yale Matzkin, all of Waterbury, for appellant.
Harry M. Albert and Michael V. Blansfield, both of Waterbury, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.
The plaintiff sued upon a note for $5,000, the defendant pleaded a general denial, and the trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover the amount of the note with interest. Two days later, during the same term of court, the defendant made a motion to open the judgment in order to enable her to offer further evidence and to file an amendment to the answer specially pleading lack of consideration for the note. The trial court opened the judgment but did not then give permission for the filing of the special defense. Some time later it was filed but under what circumstance the record does not disclose. Another trial was had and the court sustained the plea of lack of consideration. The plaintiff appealed but did not obtain a finding of facts. The only claims of error pursued before us are that the trial court erred as matter of law in permitting the filing of the special defense. The judgment having been opened, the case stood as though no judgment had been rendered. Simpson v. Y. M. C. A. of Bridgeport, 118 Conn. 414, 418, 172 A. 855. Upon this record we cannot hold that there was any such inconsistency in the defendant's pleadings as to prevent her from advancing the defense of lack of consideration. Hoard v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc, 122 Conn. 185, 191, 188 A. 269. If, as is suggested by the record, the failure specially to plead that defense prevented the defendant from offering evidence upon this issue at the original trial, there was ample justification for the allowance of the amendment to the answer. Ideal Financing Association v. LaBonte, 120 Conn. 190, 195, 180 A. 300.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sasso v. Aleshin
...166 Conn. 642, 646, 353 A.2d 706 (1974); Milford Trust Co. v. Greenberg, 137 Conn. 277, 279, 77 A.2d 80 (1950); Padaigis v. Kane, 125 Conn. 727, 728, 4 A.2d 335 (1939); State v. Carter, 3 Conn.App. 235, 239, 486 A.2d 1138 (1985). Here, the partial judgment establishing the defendant as the ......
-
Ral Mgmt., Inc. v. Valley View Associates, No. 17438.
...A.2d 827 (1974) (opening judgment of strict foreclosure and substituting judgment of foreclosure by private sale); Padaigis v. Kane, 125 Conn. 727, 727-28, 4 A.2d 335 (1939) (addressing defendant's motion to open seeking to offer further evidence and to file new special defense after trial ......
-
State v. Phillips
...the case stands as though no judgment was rendered. Milford Trust Co. v. Greenberg,137 Conn. 277, 279, 77 A.2d 80; Padaigis v. Kane, 125 Conn. 727, 728, 4 A.2d 335; Simpson v. Y.M.C.A. of Bridgeport, 118 Conn. 414, 418, 172 A. 855; compare William G. Major Construction Co. v. DeMichely, 166......
-
State v. Gillespie
...entered had never been rendered. See Milford Trust Co. v. Greenberg, 137 Conn. 277, 279, 77 A.2d 80 (1950), citing Padaigis v. Kane, 125 Conn. 727, 728, 4 A.2d 335 (1939), and Simpson v. YMCA of Bridgeport, 118 Conn. 414, 418, 172 A. 855 (1934). Accordingly, any appeal from that judgment is......