Varga v. Pareles
Decision Date | 15 May 1951 |
Citation | 81 A.2d 112,137 Conn. 663 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | VARGA et al. v. PARELES. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Ralph S. Kantrowitz, Bridgeport, for the appellant (defendant).
Kenneth J. Zarrilli, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Edward J. Lang, Bridgeport, for the appellee (named plaintiff).
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ.
O'SULLIVAN, Judge.
The plaintiffs, Julius and Martha Varga, brought this action to recover damages from the defendants, Herman and Charlotte Pareles. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs had been unlawfully evicted from their premises. Mrs. Pareles was subsequently dropped as a defendant. The jury returned a verdict for Julius on the complaint, and for the defendant on a counterclaim for rent against both plaintiffs. The defendant's appeal is concerned only with the verdict and judgment in favor of Julius. Since the status of Mrs. Varga has no bearing on the appeal, we shall ignore her as a party.
The plaintiff's claims of proof were as follows: On October 9, 1947, the defendant bought a duplex house located at 453 High Ridge Drive, Bridgeport. The plaintiff, with his wife and children, was then occupying one of the flats, and Richard Evans and his family the other. The premises were in a defense rental area and were subject to the provisions of the federal Housing and Rent Act of 1947. On December 11, 1947, the defendant instituted a summary process action against the plaintiff, and on June 1, 1948, the City Court of Bridgeport, to which the writ had been returned, rendered judgment for the defendant to recover possession of the premises. He had testified at the trial that he wanted the flat for his own use. It was on the basis of this testimony that the court reached its decision. Execution was issued, and on June 11 the plaintiff and his family were evicted. Shortly thereafter, Evans, complying with a previous request by the defendant, moved into the vacant flat, and the defendant then took possession of the one from which Evans had moved. When he took out the execution, the defendant had no intention of personally occupying the plaintiff's flat.
The defendant, on the other hand, claimed to have proved that it was not until after the eviction that he formulated the intention of exchanging apartments with Evans.
Of the various assignments of error, only the one which is directed to the charge merits discussion. The federal Housing and Rent Act of 1947 provided that no action to recover possession of any controlled housing accommodations could be maintained againt a tenant who continued to pay the rent to which the landlord was entitled, unless the latter 'seeks in good faith to recover possession of such housing accommodations for his immediate and personal use and occupancy as housing accommodations.' 61 Stat. 200, § 209(a)(2), 50 U.S.C.App. § 1899(a)(2) (Sup. 1, 1948) [50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 1899]. The effect of this act was to restrict the enforcement of a landlord's right to evict his tenant upon the termination of the lease. The act, however, failed to provide a remedy for one wrongfully dispossessed. David v. Fayman, 273 App.Div. 408, 410, 78 N.Y.S.2d 188; Willis, Federal Housing & Rent Act of 1947, 47 Col.L.Rev. 1118, 1154. Confronted by this situation, the plaintiff had to resort to such a remedy, recognized by law, as he deemed appropriate to redress the claimed wrong. New Haven v. Fresenius, 75 Conn. 145, 150, 52 A. 823; Gabriel v. Borowy, 324 Mass. 231, 234, 85 N.E.2d 435; see Hathaway v. Bornmann, 137 Conn. 322, 77 A.2d 91; Trepanier v. Hujber, 134 Conn. 24, 54 A.2d 275. He selected and brought an action for abuse of process, and at the trial and before us he expressly disclaimed reliance on either malicious prosecution or fraud. Since he has limited the scope of his action, he may recover, if at all, only upon the ground alleged. Epstein v. City of New Haven, 104 Conn. 283, 284, 132 A. 467; Hayes v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 91 Conn. 301, 304, 99 A. 694.
The court charged the jury, in part, as follows: In this passage as well as in other parts of the charge, the jury were instructed that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. R.G. Whipple, Inc.
...to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed." Mozzochi v. Beck, 204 Conn. 490, 494, 529 A.2d 171 (1987); Vargo v. Pareles, 137 Conn. 663, 667, 81 A.2d 112 (1951); see also 3 Restatement (Second), Torts § 682 (1977). Abuse of process is not an undefined cause of action; the fact th......
-
Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.
...of process, its use "in an improper manner or to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed." Varga v. Pareles, 137 Conn. 663, 667, 81 A.2d 112, 115 (1951); Schaefer v. O. K. Tool Co., 110 Conn. 528, 532-33, 148 A. 330 (1930); Restatement (Second), Torts § 682 (1977); Wright & Fitzg......
-
Mozzochi v. Beck
...defendants had engaged in overt acts for a collateral purpose unrelated to the lawsuit that they were prosecuting. Varga v. Pareles, 137 Conn. 663, 667, 81 A.2d 112 (1951). Finally, the court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint could not support an action for legal malpractice grounded......
-
Suffield Dev. Assoc. v. National Loan Investors, 21253
...'a legal process against another in an improper manner or to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed.' Varga v. Pareles, [137 Conn. 663, 667, 81 A.2d 112 (1951)]; Schaefer v. O. K. Tool Co., 110 Conn. 528, 532±n33, 148 A. 330 (1930). Because the tort arises out of the accomplishm......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...v. Connecticut Bar Examining Comm., No. HHDCV126030685, 2013 WL 870282 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 6, 2013) 6-10:2 Vargas v. Fareles, 137 Conn. 663 (1951) 10-3 Varley v. Varley, 180 Conn. 1 (1980) 2-3:3 Vega v. Mirsky, 2003 WL 22481815 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003) 11-2:3 Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport,......
-
CHAPTER 10 - 10-3 ABUSE OF PROCESS
...of clients by their attorneys."72 -------- Notes:[63] Schaefer v. O.K Tool Co., 110 Conn. 528, 532 (1930).[64] Vargas v. Pareles, 137 Conn. 663, 667 (1951).[65] Alexandru v. Dowd, 79 Conn. App. 434, 441-42, cert. denied, 266 Conn. 925 (2003) (citations omitted; emphasis in original; interna......