Reynolds v. Vroom.

• Decision Date: 27 January 1944
• Citation: 130 Conn. 512,36 A.2d 22
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. VROOM.

130 Conn. 512

36 A.2d 22

REYNOLDS

v.VROOM.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 27, 1944.

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Frank P. McEvoy, Judge.

Action by Eleanor Harding Reynolds against Charlotte Vroom for alienation of affections, in which property of defendant was attached. From an order reducing the amount of the attachment and releasing part of the attached property on defendant's application, plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Benjamin Slade, of New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

William L. Hadden, of New Haven (Daniel Pouzzner and Clarence A. Hadden, both of New Haven, on the brief), for appellee (defendant).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

ELLS, Judge.

This appeal challenges an order by the Hon. Frank P. McEvoy, as a judge of the Superior Court, reducing as excessive an attachment made in an action brought by the plaintiff claiming $250,000 damages for alienation of affections.

The action was instituted on May 20, 1943, and real and personal property was duly attached, as shown by an officer's return dated May 26. On June 3, the defendant made an application in writing to Judge McEvoy in which she alleged that estate to the value of more than $100,000 had been attached and that the attachment so far exceeded the apparent claim of the plaintiff as to be excessive, and she requested the release of so much of the property as was not required to secure the payment of the apparent claim and costs. Judge McEvoy issued an order for a hearing to be held on June 11, notice was duly served and the parties appeared and were heard upon questions of law raised by the plaintiff. No evidence was introduced to sustain the allegations made in the application. Subsequent to the oral arguments written briefs were filed by counsel for both parties, and on June 26, without further hearing, Judge McEvoy filed his memorandum of decision and his order reducing the attachment as excessive. On June 30, the present appeal was filed.

The application to reduce the attachment was based on the provisions of General Statutes, §§ 5740 and 5741. The plaintiff's principal claims are that these statutes are not applicable to the proceeding in question and that Judge McEvoy's order was arbitrary and illegal in that it was not based upon evidence. Judge McEvoy has found in effect that the plaintiff waived his right to a hearing of testimony by making certain oral admissions. There is no good reason why we should decide these questions, because subsequent proceedings make it impossible for us to provide the relief sought in the appeal. These proceedings, though not printed, are facts of record in the case in which this appeal is taken and are properly before us. Conn.App.Proc., p. 209.

On July 6, 1943, while the present appeal was pending, the defendant applied in writing to Hon. Ernest A. Inglis, a judge of the Superior Court, alleging that the total value of the property attached was approximately $105,000, and asking that the attachment be dissolved upon the substitution of a bond with surety, according to statute. The appeal from Judge McEvoy's order had suspended its effectiveness and the original attachment was in effect. Practice Book 1934, p. 111, § 366; State ex rel. Bonoff v. Evarts, 115 Conn. 98, 102, 160 A. 294, 161 A. 668. After due notice and hearing, Judge Inglis, on July 9, ordered that the attachment be released upon the substitution of a bond in the sum of $30,000 with surety by a proper surety company. A bond was filed and...