Pine Point Corp. v. Westport Bank & Trust Co.
| Decision Date | 08 November 1972 |
| Citation | 316 A.2d 765,164 Conn. 54 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | PINE POINT CORPORATION v. The WESTPORT BANK AND TRUST COMPANY. |
Samuel T. Rost. Bridgeport, with whom was Mark A. Rubenstein, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, Edwin J. Elson, Bridgeport, for appellant (plaintiff).
Richard J. Diviney, Westport, for appellee (defendant).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and RYAN, SHAPIRO, LOISELLE and MacDONALD, JJ.
In this case the plaintiff, drawer of a check, alleged negligence on the part of the defendant drawee bank in paying the check on which the stated date had been fraudulently altered. The defendant denied the allegations of negligence and raised as special defenses its status as a holder in due course and its payment of the check in good faith. The parties requested that the court decide the issues on a written stipulation of facts which they jointly represented to the court was 'a complete statement of all the material facts in this case.' By this stipulation, it was agreed that the plaintiff drew a postdated check on the defendant bank, that the original date of March 12, 1970, was fraudulently and materially altered to March 2, 1970, after delivery to the payee's agent, that the defendant paid the check on March 11, 1970, and that the plaintiff notified the bank of the alteration on April 8, 1970. The stipulation and the court refer to the cancelled check, which was filed and marked exhibit A. Confining themselves to the stipulation of facts, both parties moved for summary judgment and presented supporting affidavits. The check, stipulation, affidavits and pleadings, however, left unresolved questions as to the conspicuousness of the alteration and the bank's exercise of ordinary care. On the urging of both counsel, nevertheless, the court proceeded to make a determination of the issues. These issues were found for the defendant.
It is unnecessary to enumerate all of the plaintiff's assignments of error, for the procedure followed by the court was clearly irregular under § 303 of the Practice Book, which requires that 'judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' In passing on the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the trial court is limited to deciding whether an issue of fact exists, but in so doing, it cannot try that issue if it does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc.
...and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Practice Book, 1978, § 384; Pine Point Corporation v. Westport Bank & Trust Co., 164 Conn. 54, 55, 316 A.2d 765 (1972); Dougherty v. Graham, 161 Conn. 248, 250, 287 A.2d 382 We first address the issue whether the court wa......
-
Town Bank and Trust Co. v. Benson
...fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Practice Book § 303; Pine Point Corporation v. Westport Bank & Trust Co., 164 Conn. 54, 55, 316 A.2d 765; Dougherty v. Graham, 161 Conn. 248, 250, 287 A.2d 382; United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission, 158 ......
-
Michaud v. Gurney
...Farrell v. Waterbury Horse R. Co., 60 Conn. 239, 250, 21 A. 675.' Pine Point Corporation v. Westport Bank & Trust Co., supra, (164 Conn. 54, 56, 316 A.2d 765). Issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner.......
-
Spencer v. Good Earth Restaurant Corp.
...fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' Practice Book § 303; Pine Point Corporation v. Westport Bank & Trust Co., 164 Conn. 54, 55, 316 A.2d 765; Dougherty v. Graham, 161 Conn. 248, 250, 287 A.2d 382; United Oil Co. v. Urban Redevelopment Commission, 158 ......