Rrennan v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1903
• Citation: 75 Conn. 393,53 A. 779
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: RRENNAN v. BERLIN IRON BRIDGE CO.

53 A. 779

75 Conn. 393

RRENNAN

v. BERLIN IRON BRIDGE CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 7, 1903.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; Silas A. Robinson, Judge.

Action by William Brennan against the Berlin Iron Bridge Company for the recovery of the amount of two judgments. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Error and remanded.

William W. Hyde, Seymour C. Loomis, and Earnest C. Simpson, for appellant.

John O'Neill and William Kennedy, for appellee.

HALL, J. The first count of the complaint alleges that on the 29th of March, 1901, the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant before the superior court at Waterbury for $3,076.25, and the second count that on May 12, 1899, the plaintiff recovered judgment against the defendant in said court for $118.44. Both judgments are alleged to be unsatisfied. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff upon both counts. The defendant denies the right of the plaintiff to recover upon both counts upon the ground that both judgments are for the same cause of action and between the same parties. In inquiring whether the plaintiff may justly enforce payment of both judgments, it becomes necessary to refer to the previous litigation between these parties, which resulted in these Judgments. In 1895 the plaintiff brought an action in the superior court against this defendant to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and, no amendment having been made, Judgment was rendered for the defendant. From this judgment no appeal was taken. In 1897 a second action was brought by the plaintiff against this defendant in the same court upon the same cause of action. Upon a hearing in damages, after a default, the trial court overruled the defendant's claim that the judgment in the first case was a bar to the recovery of more than nominal damages, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $3,000 damages and costs. This judgment was set aside upon the defendant's appeal to this court, and the case remanded for the assessment of nominal damages. Brennan v. Bridge Co., 71 Conn. 479, 42 Atl. 625. Nominal damages were afterwards assessed at $50, and a judgment for that sum and costs was rendered by the superior court. This is the judgment described in the second count of the complaint. The plaintiff then brought a writ of error to this court, upon which the judgment in the first action was set aside, and it was ordered that said first case be restored to the docket of the superior court, that the demurrer to the complaint be overruled, and the case stand to be proceeded with according to law. Brennan v. Bridge Co., 72 Conn. 386, 44 Atl. 727. The plaintiff next brought an action to the superior court asking that the judgment for nominal damages in the second action be set aside, and for other equitable relief to prevent the defendant from availing himself of that judgment to defeat the retrial of the first case upon its merits, and this court, upon the reservation of that action, advised that judgment be rendered for the plaintiff, and that the defendant be enjoined from using the judgment for nominal damages as a defense or bar to the trial...