Balsamo v. Verdi

Connecticut Superior Court

Balsamo v. Verdi

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 402, 9 Conn. Supp. 402, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 106

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 24, 1941

DocketFile 58436

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 402 (Balsamo v. Verdi) 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

Balsamo v. Verdi, 9 Conn. Super. Ct. 402, 9 Conn. Supp. 402, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

KING, J.

Under date of May 23, 1941, permission was granted to the defendants to file a cross complaint in this action. This motion was dated May 13th and quite properly contained a cross complaint such as was proposed to be filed. The plaintiffs demurred to the cross complaint. The motion of May 23, 1941, was as follows: “The above named defendants respectfully move for leave to file cross complaint in the above entitled action as hereinafter set forth.

Cross Complaint [form of proposed cross complaint]”

From this it will be seen that in fact no cross complaint has been filed, although permission to file one was granted. Permission to file a proposed amendment, although granted, does not constitute the actual filing of an amendment which will support a judgment.

In view of the clear language of our Supreme Court, it does not seem that the demurrer to this nonexistent pleading could be sustained on any theory, even on the basis of the apparent acquiescence of all parties in treating the proposed cross complaint included in the motion for permission to file as the equivalent of an actual cross complaint. Motiejaitis vs. John son, 117 Conn. 631, 638; vol. A-45 Conn. Supreme Court Records and Briefs, opp. page 256, opp. page 257; Practice Book [1934] §93.

For the foregoing reasons the demurrer to the “Cross Complaint” is overruled.

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

KING, J.

Under date of May 23, 1941, permission was granted to the defendants to file a cross complaint in this action. This motion was dated May 13th and quite properly contained a cross complaint such as was proposed to be filed. The plaintiffs demurred to the cross complaint. The motion of May 23, 1941, was as follows: “The above named defendants respectfully move for leave to file cross complaint in the above entitled action as hereinafter set forth.

Cross Complaint [form of proposed cross complaint]”

From this it will be seen that in fact no cross complaint has been filed, although permission to file one was granted. Permission to file a proposed amendment, although granted, does not constitute the actual filing of an amendment which will support a judgment.

In view of the clear language of our Supreme Court, it does not seem that the demurrer to this nonexistent pleading could be sustained on any theory, even on the basis of the apparent acquiescence of all parties in treating the proposed cross complaint included in the motion for permission to file as the equivalent of an actual cross complaint. Motiejaitis vs. John son, 117 Conn. 631, 638; vol. A-45 Conn. Supreme Court Records and Briefs, opp. page 256, opp. page 257; Practice Book [1934] §93.

For the foregoing reasons the demurrer to the “Cross Complaint” is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 Conn. Super. Ct. 402, 9 Conn. Supp. 402, 1941 Conn. Super. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balsamo-v-verdi-connsuperct-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack