Pearson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.
| Decision Date | 09 November 1954 |
| Citation | 141 Conn. 646,109 A.2d 260 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Marion T. PEARSON v. BRIDGEPORT HYDRAULIC COMPANY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Marion T. Pearson, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).
Arthur C. Williams, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Philo C. Calhoun, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
An outline of the history of the lengthy litigation between the parties to this action is set forth in Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Pearson, 139 Conn. 186, 91 A.2d 778. In that opinion we sustained a judgment of the Superior Court in Fairfield County enjoining Mrs. Pearson from further prosecuting case No. 75284 and from instituting or prosecuting any further actions or legal proceedings against the Bridgeport Hydraulic Company based upon any claim with respect to the properties taken by it in two condemnation proceedings, docketed as Nos. 55050 and 55266 in the Superior Court in Fairfield County. In these cases the company had taken by eminent domain a so-called forge property and a so-called schoolhouse property, in each of which Mrs. Pearson had claimed an interest. The action referred to as No. 75284 was one in which Mrs. Pearson sought to recover damages for the allegedly wrongful removal of her personal possessions from the schoolhouse property.
The present suit is a petition for a new trial of the action in which the injunction was issued on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The trial court, upon the motion of the defendant, rendered judgment dismissing the petition, and the question on this appeal is whether that action was warranted.
The sole ground stated in the motion to dismiss was: 'This purported action or proceeding and all proceedings had or attempted to be had therein and thereunder are in violation of said injunction of this Court which is now in full force and effect.' The question facing us, therefore, is whether a party enjoined from further litigation is precluded from petitioning for a new trial of the action in which the injunction was issued because that petition for a new trial would be violative of the injunction.
Clearly, the answer must be in the negative. A petition for a new trial, although in form an independent action, is nevertheless incidental to the action of which a new trial is sought. Consequently, the judgment which the petition seeks to set aside is in no sense a bar to the proceedings for a new trial. Reilly v. State, 119 Conn. 217, 220, 175 A. 582; DeMichiel & Bros. v. Sequin, 114 Conn. 736, 159 A. 889; Alling v. Levitt, 112 Conn. 586, 591, 153 A. 166. If the plaintiff has good grounds for vacating the injunction, she may not be prevented from asserting them in a petition for a new trial which may result in a demonstration that the injunction was improperly issued.
In its brief, the defendant seeks to support the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Department of Public Health
...to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction. Pearson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 141 Conn. 646, 648, 109 A.2d 260 (1954)." Upson v. State, 190 Conn. 622, 624, 461 A.2d 991 (1983). "Because the exhaustion [of administrative remedies] d......
-
Flanagan v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
...to dismiss tests, inter alia, whether, on the face of the record, the court is without jurisdiction. Pearson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 141 Conn. 646, 648, 109 A.2d 260 (1954). Upson v. State, 190 Conn. 622, 624, 461 A.2d 991 (1983). Because the exhaustion [of administrative remedies] doc......
-
Karp v. Urban Redevelopment Commission of City of Stamford
...when it clearly appears on the face of the record that the court is without jurisdiction. Practice Book § 94; Pearson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 141 Conn. 646, 648, 109 A.2d 260; Reilly v. Antonio Pepe Co., 108 Conn. 436, 443, 143 A. 568. The issue is the appeal to this court, is, therefo......
-
City of Hartford v. Connecticut Natural Gas Corp.
...were proper. Practice Book § 94. The court concludes that it has no jurisdiction of the appeal by the city. Pearson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co., 141 Conn. 646, 648, 109 A.2d 260; Felletter v. Thompson, 133 Conn. 277, 279-280, 50 A.2d 81; Long v. Zoning Commission, 133 Conn. 248, 250, 50 A.2......