Padaigis v. Kane

• Decision Date: 07 February 1939
• Citation: 4 A.2d 335,125 Conn. 727
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PADAIGIS v. KANE.

4 A.2d 335

125 Conn. 727

PADAIGIS v. KANE.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

February 7, 1939

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.

PER CURIAM.

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...