Zinman v. Maislen
| Decision Date | 10 June 1915 |
| Citation | 94 A. 285,89 Conn. 413 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ZINMAN et al. v. MAISLEN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Edwin B. Gager, Judge.
Action for an injunction and judgment declaring void a certificate of foreclosure by Henry Zinman and others against Max Maislen.
From a Judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals, claiming error in the rulings of the court. Affirmed.
John J. Dwyer and Jacob Schwolsky, both of Hartford, for appellant. Josiah H. Peck and Solomon R. Herrup, both of Hartford, for appellees.
The defendant claims title to certain land on Queen and Flower streets in the city of Hartford by virtue of a conveyance of the same from one Rabinovitz to him. Rabinovitz claimed title by virtue of a foreclosure in the city court of Hartford of a mechanic's lien on the property, it being claimed that his title by virtue of such foreclosure became absolute on the 29th day of September, 1914, and that a certificate of foreclosure was duly filed in the town clerk's office on the following clay. The plaintiffs claimed and alleged in their complaint that the judgment of foreclosure mentioned was rendered on the 16th day of September, 1914, that the law day for redemption was fixed for the 29th of September, and that notice of an appeal from said judgment was duly given by them on the 18th day of September, and a request for a finding filed on the 29th day of September, thus effecting a stay upon further proceedings under the judgment and that the certificate of foreclosure was void.
By the agreed statement of facts upon which the case was tried and by the finding of the court the record of the city court shows that the judgment of foreclosure was rendered as thus claimed on the 16th of September, and that the notice of appeal and request for a finding were duly filed by the plaintiffs before the expiration of the time limited for redemption. This being so, further proceedings under the judgment were stayed, the plaintiffs were not compelled to redeem upon the law day limited by the judgment, and the certificate of foreclosure, which was filed by Rabinovitz, had no validity. It is difficult to see how this record could have been collaterally attacked had the trial proceeded in the ordinary way.
But the case was tried as already stated upon an agreed statement of facts, wherein it appears that the judge of the city court on August 5, 1914, filed a "memorandum of decision" reading:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ral Mgmt., Inc. v. Valley View Associates, No. 17438.
...often recognized that the law days established in a foreclosure judgment are ineffective while an appeal is pending. In Zinman v. Maislen, 89 Conn. 413, 94 A. 285 (1915), the holding of the court is summarized in the headnote as follows: `The seasonable filing of a notice of appeal . . . op......
-
Benvenuto v. Mahajan, 15927
...the issues for the defendant or determine the amount of the debt, direct a foreclosure and fix the law days. See Zinman v. Maislen, [89 Conn. 413, 416, 94 A. 285 (1915) ]. Morici v. Jarvie, 137 Conn. 97, 103, 75 A.2d 47 (1950). A strict foreclosure judgment must also determine the issue of ......
-
Morici v. Jarvie
...lien. It does not fix any law days for redemption by any of the defendants. This document, unlike the memorandum in Zinman v. Maislen, 89 Conn. 413, 416, 94 A. 285, 286, cited by the plaintiff, was more than a mere memorandum intended as a preliminary to the judgment in the case. The memora......
-
Marine Midland Bank v. Ahern
...appeal in any event.4 See Farmers & Mechanics Savings Bank v. Sullivan, 216 Conn. 341, 346-47, 579 A.2d 1054 (1990); Zinman v. Maislen, 89 Conn. 413, 416, 94 A. 285 (1915). Therefore, there is no practical relief that this court can grant to the defendants. Accordingly, we dismiss this clai......