Cicarelli v. Armand Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Cicarelli v. Armand Co.

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 385, 6 Conn. Supp. 385, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 146

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1938

DocketFile #54957

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 385 (Cicarelli v. Armand 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

Cicarelli v. Armand Co., 6 Conn. Super. Ct. 385, 6 Conn. Supp. 385, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

CORNELL, J.

The judgment which the plaintiff would have opened was entered upon the sustaining of a plea to the jurisdiction on June 17, 1938. Since it resulted in a dismissal of the cause alleged against the defendant, The Armand Co., it is final as to that party. Norton vs. Shore Line Ry. Co., 84 Conn. 24, 31, and cases cited in the opinion. Such being the case, the Court lost control over it after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered. Conn. Mortgage & Title Guar anty Co. vs. DiFrancesco, 112 Conn. 673, 674; Potter vs. Prudential Ins. Co., 108 id. 271, 282. It then became and remains inviolate unless, in a proper proceeding it is set aside for reasons cognisable in equity. Among the latter grounds is that alleged here, vis., mistake of fact, if “unmixed with negligence upon the part of the aggrieved party or his attorney.” Jarvis vs. Martin, 77 Conn. 19, 21.

It may be that in the situation disclosed at the hearing on the instant motion the parties may stipulate that the judgment be opened, thus to save the necessity of further proceedings and additional expense. In case such a situation should eventuate, while the procedure would be irregular, the Court would then feel justified in granting a motion to open. Simpson vs. Y.M.C.A. of Bridgeport, 118 Conn. 414, 417.

The instant motion for the reasons noted, is denied.

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

CORNELL, J.

The judgment which the plaintiff would have opened was entered upon the sustaining of a plea to the jurisdiction on June 17, 1938. Since it resulted in a dismissal of the cause alleged against the defendant, The Armand Co., it is final as to that party. Norton vs. Shore Line Ry. Co., 84 Conn. 24, 31, and cases cited in the opinion. Such being the case, the Court lost control over it after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered. Conn. Mortgage & Title Guar anty Co. vs. DiFrancesco, 112 Conn. 673, 674; Potter vs. Prudential Ins. Co., 108 id. 271, 282. It then became and remains inviolate unless, in a proper proceeding it is set aside for reasons cognisable in equity. Among the latter grounds is that alleged here, vis., mistake of fact, if “unmixed with negligence upon the part of the aggrieved party or his attorney.” Jarvis vs. Martin, 77 Conn. 19, 21.

It may be that in the situation disclosed at the hearing on the instant motion the parties may stipulate that the judgment be opened, thus to save the necessity of further proceedings and additional expense. In case such a situation should eventuate, while the procedure would be irregular, the Court would then feel justified in granting a motion to open. Simpson vs. Y.M.C.A. of Bridgeport, 118 Conn. 414, 417.

The instant motion for the reasons noted, is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Conn. Super. Ct. 385, 6 Conn. Supp. 385, 1938 Conn. Super. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cicarelli-v-armand-co-connsuperct-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack