Went v. Schmidt

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MALTBIE, Chief Justice.
• Citation: Went v. Schmidt, 117 Conn. 257, 167 A. 721 (Conn. 1933)
• Decision Date: 25 July 1933
• Parties: WENT et al. v. SCHMIDT.

167 A. 721

117 Conn. 257

WENT et al. v. SCHMIDT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 25, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; Arthur F. Ells Judge.

Action by Ferdinand Went and others against Theresa Schmidt, to recover for services rendered defendant. Plaintiffs recovered judgment by default, and the court, having heard the plaintiffs, found that they had not sustained damages as alleged, and plaintiffs appeal.

No error.

John J. Casale, of Torrington, for appellants.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant in which they alleged that the defendant promised to pay them the reasonable value of services rendered in caring for her in their home. The defendant made default of appearance. The trial court, having heard the plaintiffs, gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs have appealed. " A default in an action for legal relief admits the material facts declared on as constituting a cause of action, and that, if these do constitute a cause of action, the plaintiff has a right to recover at least nominal damages." Starr Cash & Package Car Co. v. Starr, 69 Conn. 440 446, 37 A. 1057, 1059: Paiwich v. Krieswalis, 97 Conn. 123, 125, 115 A. 720; Gallup v. Jeffery Co., 86 Conn. 308, 311, 85 A. 374; Fox v. Hoyt, 12 Conn 491, 498, 31 Am.Dec. 760. " The defendants, by their omission to deny them are held to have admitted the truth of all well pleaded material allegations in the declaration, and the consequent right of the plaintiff to a judgment for a limited sum, that is, for nominal damages and costs, without the introduction of evidence. This is the extent of the advantage gained by the plaintiff from that omission; if he is not satisfied with nominal, and seeks greater damages, he must proceed to prove the amount, and the declaration, so far forth as the increased amount is concerned, remains subject to the rules of pleading and evidence, and the proof must follow the allegations as closely as if the case stood upon the general issue. If therefore, in proving the greater damages, the plaintiff proves that they resulted entirely from a wrong which he has not declared upon, this evidence forces him back to the nominal judgment." Shepard v. New Haven & Northampton Co., 45 Conn. 54, 58; New York, N.H. & H. R. Co. v. Hungerford, 75 Conn. 76, 82, 52 A. 487. So if, upon the hearing, the court becomes satisfied that the cause of action alleged in the complaint did not in fact exist, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything more than nominal damages.

The record before us contains no finding of facts. The contention...