Town of Southbury v. American Builders, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1972 |
| Citation | 162 Conn. 633,295 A.2d 566 |
| Parties | TOWN OF SOUTHBURY v. AMERICAN BUILDERS, INC., et al. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Harry Cohen, New Milford, with whom, on the brief, was Sorrell Weiner, Hartford, for the appellants (defendants).
J. Warren Upson, Waterbury, with whom were W. Fielding Secor, Waterbury, and, on the brief, Donald McPartland, Waterbury, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and RYAN, SHAPIRO, LOISELLE and MacDONALD, * JJ.
By amended complaint, the plaintiff town of Southbury sought an injunction to compel the defendants to vacate and demolish a building in Southbury, on the ground that the building violated the Southbury zoning regulations. The defendant answered, filed five special defenses and a counterclaim asking for a judgment declaring the zoning regulations of the plaintiff town null and void. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on both the complaint and the counterclaim.
During oral argument the defendants acknowledged that they no longer had any interest in the premises in question because of a foreclosure subsequent to this appeal. Although a party may have had an appealable interest in a controversy, if, after judgment, his interest is either conveyed or transferred absolutely or terminated by operation of law, his right to appeal is lost, since he no longer has any interest in the litigation and is not injured by the result of the action. Newton v. Barnett, 146 Conn. 344, 346, 150 A.2d 821; Braasch v. Mandel, 40 Del.Ch. 12, 172 A.2d 271; 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 179.
As to the counterclaim, nowhere therein is there any allegation made that the defendants have any interest which would be affected so as to give them standing to prosecute their counterclaim. Before the hearing of this appeal the plaintiff had moved to dismiss it on the ground that the defendants lacked standing to prosecute it. Southbury v. American Builders, Inc., 162 Conn. 638, 284 A.2d 306. On the information then before us and, in the absence of a full record, we were unable to determine the merits of that motion and it was therefore, denied.
Having now on the appeal examined the full record and having the benefit of full briefs and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the defendants did not allege sufficient interest or standing on the subject matter to prosecute their counterclaim. Avery's Appeal, 117 Conn. 201, 206, 167 A. 544; 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 182.
As to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nader v. Altermatt
...ITT series N stock pursuant to the exchange offer approved by the commissioner. The appeal is moot as to her. Southbury v. American Builder, Inc., 162 Conn. 633, 634, 295 A.2d 566; 4 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 179; see Braasch v. Mandel, 40 Del.Ch. 12, 172 A.2d Cooper's sole alleged bas......
-
Handsome, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of Monroe
...to the property on June 30, 2010, more than ten months before the commission granted the permit extension.In Southbury v. American Builders, Inc., 162 Conn. 633, 295 A.2d 566 (1972), in which the defendants conceded that they had no interest in the property in question because of a foreclos......
-
Fuller v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of New Hartford
...since he no longer has any interest in the litigation and is not injured by the result of the action." Southbury v. American Builders, Inc., 162 Conn. 633, 634, 295 A.2d 566 (1972).4 Both the Kores deed and the Manizza deed describe the property conveyed to each as bound by Burwell Road.5 I......
-
Groesbeck v. Sotire, 2301
...merits of the appeal. Christy Hill Builders, Inc. v. Hall, 184 Conn. 575, 577 n. 3, 439 A.2d 1065 (1981); Southbury v. American Builders, Inc., 162 Conn. 633, 634, 295 A.2d 566 (1972); Gores v. Rosenthal, 148 Conn. 218, 220-21, 169 A.2d 639 Jurisdiction over an appeal requires the existence......