Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. S. Landow & Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. S. Landow & Co.

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 269, 8 Conn. Supp. 269, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 97

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 27, 1940

DocketFile 55432

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 269 (Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. S. Landow & 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

Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. S. Landow & Co., 8 Conn. Super. Ct. 269, 8 Conn. Supp. 269, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 97 (Colo. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

CORNELL, J.

The first count is based upon the nonpayment of a note of $250 dated March 21, 1932, payable three *270 months after daté, upon which there is an unpaid balance of $15. It is certain that the addition of interest to this sum until the present date, fails to describe a claim which, as to amount, is within the jurisdiction of this court.

This count is, however, followed by three, others in the same complaint, the amount in demand in each of which is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. The fact that this is so does not confer jurisdiction on this court to entertain the claim described in the first count and render judgment thereon or include it in the total amount found due on all counts. The provisions of §5457 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, which apply to courts of limited jurisdiction, have no application to the Superior Court. Brennan vs. Berlin Iron Bridge Co., 75 Conn. 393, 396, 397.

Excluding the demand described in the first count of the complaint, judgment may be rendered as follows: on the second count, in the sum of $4,006.55; on the third, in the sum of $19,771.63; on the fourth, in the sum of $19,939.49, or a total of $43,717.67, to which shall be added the sum of $50 as counsel fees.

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

CORNELL, J.

The first count is based upon the nonpayment of a note of $250 dated March 21, 1932, payable three *270 months after daté, upon which there is an unpaid balance of $15. It is certain that the addition of interest to this sum until the present date, fails to describe a claim which, as to amount, is within the jurisdiction of this court.

This count is, however, followed by three, others in the same complaint, the amount in demand in each of which is within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. The fact that this is so does not confer jurisdiction on this court to entertain the claim described in the first count and render judgment thereon or include it in the total amount found due on all counts. The provisions of §5457 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1930, which apply to courts of limited jurisdiction, have no application to the Superior Court. Brennan vs. Berlin Iron Bridge Co., 75 Conn. 393, 396, 397.

Excluding the demand described in the first count of the complaint, judgment may be rendered as follows: on the second count, in the sum of $4,006.55; on the third, in the sum of $19,771.63; on the fourth, in the sum of $19,939.49, or a total of $43,717.67, to which shall be added the sum of $50 as counsel fees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Conn. Super. Ct. 269, 8 Conn. Supp. 269, 1940 Conn. Super. LEXIS 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reconstruction-finance-corp-v-s-landow-co-connsuperct-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack