Valluzzo v. Valluzzo
| Decision Date | 30 July 1925 |
| Citation | 103 Conn. 265,130 A. 126 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | VALLUZZO v. VALLUZZO. |
Suit by Chiara Valluzzo against Michele Valluzzo. Judgment for defendant upon a cross-complaint, and plaintiff appeals. On application of plaintiff for an order requiring the trial judge to make and file a finding of facts relative to his refusal of alimony pendente lite and sum for prosecution of appeal. Application granted.
Chester H. Brush, of Danbury, for plaintiff.
The defendant having obtained judgment for a divorce upon a cross-complaint, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and request for a finding of facts. Pending the filing of the finding, the plaintiff made application to the superior court for an order directing the defendant to pay her a sum of money to enable her to prosecute the appeal and also alimony pendente lite, and thereafter appeared in court and was heard. The trial court, before the plaintiff filed her appeal from the judgment, denied the motions, and thereafter refused to make a finding of facts to enable her to prosecute an appeal from that ruling. The denial of her motions would not constitute such a final judgment as would of itself form the basis of an appeal. Russell Lumber Co. v. J. E. Smith & Co., Inc., 82 Conn. 517, 74 A. 949. But supplemental proceedings sometimes follow upon a final judgment which may be brought within the scope of the appeal taken from it; thus, in Coughlin v. McElroy, 72 Conn. 444, 448, 44 A. 743, this court reviewed, on an appeal from a judgment in the case of a contested election, the order of the trial court directing that execution issue despite the taking of the appeal. The plaintiff is entitled to present here her claims as to the jurisdiction of the trial court to grant her the relief sought by her motions, and as to any errors it committed in denying them, which may be assigned in an amendment to the appeal already taken from the judgment of divorce.
It is ordered that within a reasonable time the trial judge who heard the motions for an allowance and alimony pendente lite make and file a finding of facts with reference thereto.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hiss v. Hiss.
...in the action; 289 Rec. & Briefs 852; and it was properly assigned as error in the appeal from that judgment. In Valluzzo v. Valluzzo, 103 Conn. 265, at page 266, 130 A. 126, the court, after judgment upon the main issue was rendered, denied motions for an allowance to prosecute an appeal a......
-
Ahneman v. Ahneman
...whether or not such rulings would themselves constitute final judgments which would be the basis of an appeal"); Valluzzo v. Valluzzo, 103 Conn. 265, 266, 130 A. 126 (1925) ("The denial of her motions would not constitute such a final judgment as would of itself form the basis of an appeal.......
-
Dolan v. Dolan
...procedure 'to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action,' Rule 1, M.R.C.P. we review. See Valluzzo v. Valluzzo, 1925, 103 Conn. 265, 130 A. 126. Initially we must determine whether counsel fees, either for the wife's defense at the trial level or for the prosecut......
- Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. City of Bridgeport