Kowalski v. Kowalski

Connecticut Superior Court

Kowalski v. Kowalski

16 Conn. Super. Ct. 437, 16 Conn. Supp. 437, 1950 Conn. Super. LEXIS 10

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1950

DocketFile 79103

StatusPublished

This text of 16 Conn. Super. Ct. 437 (Kowalski v. Kowalski) 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

Kowalski v. Kowalski, 16 Conn. Super. Ct. 437, 16 Conn. Supp. 437, 1950 Conn. Super. LEXIS 10 (Colo. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

ALCORN, J.

This action, returnable on the first Tuesday of April, 1947, claims $3000 damages, an accounting, “an order of the court dividing said savings account equally,” and such other relief as to equity may appertain. The complaint alleges that the parties, husband and wife, agreed to save their net earnings in a joint savings account in which each would have a half interest; that the parties separated in February, 1947, as a result of a marital rift; and that the defendant has refused to divide the account which amounts to about $2000.

In other words, the plaintiff seeks to recover about $1000. The Court of Common Pleas, and not the Superior Court, has jurisdiction of actions in which the matter in demand does not exceed $2500. General Statutes §§ 7745, 7740, (Sup. 1941, §§ 813f, 808f when this action was brought). Where it ap' pears from the allegations of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot recover the damages claimed, then the matier in demand will be the highest sum which the plaintiff upon the face of the complaint appears to be entitled to recover. Atlantic Refining Co. v. Schoen, 118 Conn. 26, 28; Friede v. Jennings, 121 Conn. 220, 230; Congregation B’nai Israel v. Dymytruk, 129 Conn. 415, 418.

Even if the plaintiff sought the entire account in issue, with interest accrued to the date of suit, it would be below the lowest concurrent jurisdiction of this court.

*438 It is noted in passing that the evidence, which was brief, showed that the account at no time ever exceeded $2148.75 and at the time complained of amounted to $1316.93. Furthermore, the plaintiff negatived the allegations of his own complaint by-testifying that there was no agreement concerning the account and, beyond that, it is clear that the defendant is entitled to the account by gift.

Judgment may enter erasing the action from the docket for lack of jurisdiction.

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

ALCORN, J.

This action, returnable on the first Tuesday of April, 1947, claims $3000 damages, an accounting, “an order of the court dividing said savings account equally,” and such other relief as to equity may appertain. The complaint alleges that the parties, husband and wife, agreed to save their net earnings in a joint savings account in which each would have a half interest; that the parties separated in February, 1947, as a result of a marital rift; and that the defendant has refused to divide the account which amounts to about $2000.

In other words, the plaintiff seeks to recover about $1000. The Court of Common Pleas, and not the Superior Court, has jurisdiction of actions in which the matter in demand does not exceed $2500. General Statutes §§ 7745, 7740, (Sup. 1941, §§ 813f, 808f when this action was brought). Where it ap' pears from the allegations of the complaint that the plaintiff cannot recover the damages claimed, then the matier in demand will be the highest sum which the plaintiff upon the face of the complaint appears to be entitled to recover. Atlantic Refining Co. v. Schoen, 118 Conn. 26, 28; Friede v. Jennings, 121 Conn. 220, 230; Congregation B’nai Israel v. Dymytruk, 129 Conn. 415, 418.

Even if the plaintiff sought the entire account in issue, with interest accrued to the date of suit, it would be below the lowest concurrent jurisdiction of this court.

*438 It is noted in passing that the evidence, which was brief, showed that the account at no time ever exceeded $2148.75 and at the time complained of amounted to $1316.93. Furthermore, the plaintiff negatived the allegations of his own complaint by-testifying that there was no agreement concerning the account and, beyond that, it is clear that the defendant is entitled to the account by gift.

Judgment may enter erasing the action from the docket for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Conn. Super. Ct. 437, 16 Conn. Supp. 437, 1950 Conn. Super. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kowalski-v-kowalski-connsuperct-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack