Salamandra v. Kozlowski
| Decision Date | 24 May 1977 |
| Citation | 173 Conn. 136,376 A.2d 1103 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Eugene SALAMANDRA et al. v. Edward J. KOZLOWSKI, Commissioner, Department of Motor Vehicles. |
Victor M. Gordon, New Haven, with whom, on the brief, was David W. Goldman, New Haven, for appellants (plaintiffs).
John F. Gill, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., for appellee (defendant).
Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.
The plaintiffs, A-1 Rentals, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, and Eugene Salamandra, the president and treasurer of said corporation, brought an action for a declaratory judgment to determine whether under the provisions of § 53-303 1 of the General Statutes the plaintiff Salamandra and members of his family can legally engage in the business of merchandising motor vehicles on Sunday. The defendant named in the declaratory judgment action was the commissioner of motor vehicles for the state of Connecticut.
The defendant commissioner filed a plea in abatement challenging the jurisdiction of the court to render a declaratory judgment, on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the requirements of § 309(d) of the Practice Book that all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint be parties to the action.
Section 309 of the Practice Book provides in relevant part: "The court will not render declaratory judgments upon the complaint of any person . . . (d) unless all persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint are parties to the action or have reasonable notice thereof."
The trial court found that all persons, firms and corporations licensed by the state of Connecticut to merchandise motor vehicles had an interest in the subject matter of this action; that all such persons, firms and corporations must be notified or joined as parties in compliance with § 309(d) of the Practice Book; and that since such persons, firms and corporations had not been made parties to, or been given notice of, said action, the court was without jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment. The trial court rendered judgment sustaining the plea in abatement and denied the motion to vacate the order sustaining the plea in abatement. From the judgment rendered dismissing the action the plaintiffs have appealed, assigning error in the action of the court in sustaining the plea in abatement and in denying the plaintiffs "an opportunity to seek an order of notice for service of the complaint upon 'all (other) persons having an interest in the subject matter of the complaint.' "
The facts found by the trial court have not been challenged. The error assigned to the court's refusal to find facts claimed to be admitted or undisputed has not been briefed and is considered abandoned. Pappas v. Pappas, 164 Conn. 242, 243, 320 A.2d 809.
The conclusions of the court are tested by the facts found. Brockett v. Jensen, 154 Conn. 328, 331, 225 A.2d 190. The conclusions must stand "unless they are legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or unless they involve the application of some erroneous rule of law material to the case." Schnier v. Ives, 162 Conn. 171, 177, 293 A.2d 1, 4. It is evident that the facts found by the trial court amply support the conclusions reached and the record fails to disclose the application of any erroneous rule of law. 2
The plaintiffs next claim that the plea in abatement was an improper one to challenge the court's lack of jurisdiction, asserting that the proper pleading should have been a motion to erase. That claim was not raised nor ruled upon by the trial court as required by § 652 of the Practice Book. Moreover, whenever a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Gode
...indicate that any effort has been made to notify the parties in those actions of this litigation. See Salamandra v. Kozlowski, 173 Conn. 136, 137-38, 376 A.2d 1103 (1977). My major reason for declining to answer the questions reserved requires some discussion of the merits of the issues rai......
-
Franchi v. Farmholme, Inc.
...timely claim for the jury We first take up the claim in which the defendants attack jurisdiction. See Salamandra v. Kozlowski, 173 Conn. 136, 139, 376 A.2d 1103 (1977); Atwood v. Regional School District No. 15, 169 Conn. 613, 616, 363 A.2d 1038 (1975). They argue that General Statutes § 52......
-
Lo Sacco v. Young
...money damages be in writing.4 The defendants cite Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 185 Conn. 510, 441 A.2d 163 (1981), Salamandra v. Kozlowski, 173 Conn. 136, 376 A.2d 1103 (1977), and State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 327 A.2d 576 (1973), in support of the proposition that errors not claimed at tri......
-
Gianetti v. Norwalk Hosp., 13415
...[157 Conn. 1, 5, 244 A.2d 397 (1968) ]; Wenzel v. Danbury, 152 Conn. 675, 677, 211 A.2d 683 (1965); see also Salamandra v. Kozlowski, 173 Conn. 136, 138 n. 2, 376 A.2d 1103 (1977)." Cavalli v. McMahon, 174 Conn. 212, 215, 384 A.2d 374 (1978). We have, however, entertained reservations where......