Russell Lumber Co. v. J. E. Smith & Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Russell Lumber Co. v. J. E. Smith & Co.

74 A. 949, 82 Conn. 517, 1909 Conn. LEXIS 86

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedDecember 17, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 74 A. 949 (Russell Lumber Co. v. J. E. Smith & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell Lumber Co. v. J. E. Smith & Co., 74 A. 949, 82 Conn. 517, 1909 Conn. LEXIS 86 (Colo. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a motion, made two years after final judgment had been rendered in the action, asking for a stay of execution therein. The ground of the motion is that the judgment is merged in a judgment obtained by the plaintiff on scire facias against the Waterbury National Bank, who was factorized in this action as the debtor of the defendant. If such be the fact, the defendant has a remedy in the nature of an equitable action or of audita querela. A proceeding in either of these ways would result in a final judgment, from which an appeal is provided by statute. The statute provides for appeals only from final judgments. The present appeal is not from such a judgment. It was therefore unwarranted and improper, and gives to this court no jurisdiction over the case. The appeal is erased from the docket.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a motion, made two years after final judgment had been rendered in the action, asking for a stay of execution therein. The ground of the motion is that the judgment is merged in a judgment obtained by the plaintiff on scire facias against the Waterbury National Bank, who was factorized in this action as the debtor of the defendant. If such be the fact, the defendant has a remedy in the nature of an equitable action or of audita querela. A proceeding in either of these ways would result in a final judgment, from which an appeal is provided by statute. The statute provides for appeals only from final judgments. The present appeal is not from such a judgment. It was therefore unwarranted and improper, and gives to this court no jurisdiction over the case. The appeal is erased from the docket.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A. 949, 82 Conn. 517, 1909 Conn. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-lumber-co-v-j-e-smith-co-conn-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack