Pascack Val. Bank & Trust Co. v. Ritar Ford Sales, Inc.
Citation | 295 A.2d 667,6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 646 |
Court | Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division |
Decision Date | 25 August 1972 |
Parties | PASCACK VALLEY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. RITAR FORD SALES, INC., et al. No, CV 1-671-12940. |
Sidney Vogel, Norwalk, on the brief for defendant.
Lawrence J. Merly, Bridgeport, on the brief for plaintiff.
The parties have stipulated that the motion be decided on briefs. The plaintiff in the trial court sought damages for the conversion of an automobile which it claimed as the assignee of a conditional sale contract and note. Judgment was rendered for the named defendant on July 30, 1968, and the plaintiff appealed to this court. We remanded the case on March 23, 1970, for a proper finding and further proceedings. On April 10, 1970, a corrected finding was filed and the parties thereupon stipulated that further documents and arguments be waived and the case be decided on the records before us. On December 24, 1970, this court found error and directed a judgment for the plaintiff together with interest on the judgment at 6 percent per annum from the date of the original judgment in the trial court, that is, from July 30, 1968. Pascack Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Ritar Ford, Inc., 6 Conn.Cir. 489, 502, 276 A.2d 800. This judgment was announced December 31, 1970. Certification for review was denied March 24, 1971. Pascack Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Ritar Ford Sales, Inc., 160 Conn. 590, 274 A.2d 884.
The defendant now claims that interest on the judgment is recoverable only from December 31, 1970, and not from July 30, 1968. 'At common law, judgments do not bear interest but interest on judgments is now generally allowed by virtue of statute.' Little v. United National Investors Corporation, 160 Conn. 534, 536, 280 A.2d 890, 891. Interest on a judgment runs from the date of that judgment. General Statutes § 52-349; see Mazzotta v. Bornstein, 105 Conn. 242, 244, 135 A. 38. The question raised here is whether interest was allowable from the date of the judgment for the defendant when upon appeal that judgment was set aside and judgment for the plaintiff was directed.
The defendant cites Weed v. Weed, 25 Conn. 494, 497, to support its contention that, where a judgment in a trial court has been modified by an appellate court, interest runs from the date of the judgment in the appellate court. In Weed, a motion for a new trial was granted unless the plaintiff should remit a certain sum improperly included in his verdict, which he accordingly did, and judgment was rendered for the remainder of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
TDS Painting & Restoration, Inc. v. Copper Beech Farm, Inc.
...Co. v. North Haven, 163 Conn. 428, 311 A.2d 90 (1972); Weed v. Weed, 25 Conn. 494 (1857); Pascack Valley Bank & Trust Co. v. Ritar Ford Sales, Inc., 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 646, 295 A.2d 667 (1972). Therefore, for those calculations, the date of the final judgment is March 4, 1996. See Patron v. K......
-
Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society of Maryland v. Davis
...Cir.1987); Isaacson Structural Steel Co. v. Armco Steel Corp., 640 P.2d 812, 818 (Alaska 1982); Pascack Valley Bank and Trust Co. v. Ritar Ford Sales, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 646, 295 A.2d 667 (1972); Knapp and State of Maryland v. Shepherd, 741 A.2d 1026 (Del.1999); Bell v. Westinghouse Electric Co......
-
Mason v. Western Mortg. Loan Corp.
...640 P.2d at 817 (quoting Thornal v. Cargill, Inc., 587 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Tex.1979). See also Pascack Valley Bank and Trust Co. v. Ritar Ford Sales, Inc., 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 646, 295 A.2d 667 (1972). One reason these jurisdictions follow the minority rule is that they do not consider responsibili......