Balaska v. Town Country Chevrolet Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Balaska v. Town Country Chevrolet Co.

216 A.2d 450, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 173, 26 Conn. Supp. 173, 1964 Conn. Super. LEXIS 189

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 17, 1964

DocketFile No. 5081

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 216 A.2d 450 (Balaska v. Town Country Chevrolet Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Balaska v. Town Country Chevrolet Co., 216 A.2d 450, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 173, 26 Conn. Supp. 173, 1964 Conn. Super. LEXIS 189 (Colo. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an action wherein the plaintiff alleges a breach of a written new-vehicle warranty by the defendants on two trucks manufactured and built by the defendant The General Motors Corporation. The defendant The Town and Country Chevrolet Company filed a counterclaim against the defendant The General Motors Corporation to which a motion to expunge was filed.

A cross complaint may be addressed by one defendant against a codefendant as long as it relates to the transaction upon which the main case is founded.New Haven Metal Heating Supply Co. v. Flanagan,7 Conn. Sup. 195. In the matter at bar, the substance of the complaint and the counterclaim is a written warranty which runs with the vehicle. The *Page 174 counterclaim is related and germane to the complaint, and full consideration of both is essential to a complete adjudication of the rights of all the parties to the action. Puleo v. Goldberg, 129 Conn. 34,37. The relationship in both is contractual.

Although the preferred practice is for the defendant The Town and Country Chevrolet Company to commence a new action against the defendant The General Motors Corporation and then move to consolidate, this would accomplish nothing but the expenditure of more time, energy and costs. The rights between the defendants must be litigated at some future time. Why delay, if this can be accomplished in this action? It is the constant practice of the court to prevent multiplicity of suits. M. R.Transportation Co. v. Read, 9 Conn. Sup. 77, 78. Our rules of practice should be liberally construed.

Accordingly, the motion to expunge the counterclaim of the defendant The Town and Country Chevrolet Company is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is an action wherein the plaintiff alleges a breach of a written new-vehicle warranty by the defendants on two trucks manufactured and built by the defendant The General Motors Corporation. The defendant The Town and Country Chevrolet Company filed a counterclaim against the defendant The General Motors Corporation to which a motion to expunge was filed.

A cross complaint may be addressed by one defendant against a codefendant as long as it relates to the transaction upon which the main case is founded.New Haven Metal Heating Supply Co. v. Flanagan,7 Conn. Sup. 195. In the matter at bar, the substance of the complaint and the counterclaim is a written warranty which runs with the vehicle. The *Page 174 counterclaim is related and germane to the complaint, and full consideration of both is essential to a complete adjudication of the rights of all the parties to the action. Puleo v. Goldberg, 129 Conn. 34,37. The relationship in both is contractual.

Although the preferred practice is for the defendant The Town and Country Chevrolet Company to commence a new action against the defendant The General Motors Corporation and then move to consolidate, this would accomplish nothing but the expenditure of more time, energy and costs. The rights between the defendants must be litigated at some future time. Why delay, if this can be accomplished in this action? It is the constant practice of the court to prevent multiplicity of suits. M. R.Transportation Co. v. Read, 9 Conn. Sup. 77, 78. Our rules of practice should be liberally construed.

Accordingly, the motion to expunge the counterclaim of the defendant The Town and Country Chevrolet Company is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.2d 450, 26 Conn. Super. Ct. 173, 26 Conn. Supp. 173, 1964 Conn. Super. LEXIS 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balaska-v-town-country-chevrolet-co-connsuperct-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack