Young v. Polish Loan and Industrial Corporation

11 A.2d 395, 126 Conn. 714
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedFebruary 23, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 11 A.2d 395 (Young v. Polish Loan and Industrial Corporation) 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
Young v. Polish Loan and Industrial Corporation, 11 A.2d 395, 126 Conn. 714 (Colo. 1940).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff secured a judgment for damages for personal injuries due to the negligence of the defendants and a decree setting aside a conveyance of real estate by the named defendant on the ground that it was fraudulent. The defendants *715 filed an appeal to this court. Subsequently the plaintiff made a motion in the action that a receiver be appointed to manage the real estate and collect the rents and profits therefrom. The trial court granted the motion and appointed a receiver. At that time the defendants had filed a request for a finding but none had been made. The defendants filed this appeal from the granting of the motion appointing the receiver as from a separate judgment. The appointment of a receiver of rents in a pending action is not ordinarily a final judgment which can be made the basis of an appeal. Silver v. Kingston Realty Corp., 114 Conn. 349, 351, note, 158 Atl. 889. When such an order is made after judgment in the action has been rendered but while an appeal is pending from that judgment, a claim that the order was erroneous may be included in that appeal. Valluzzo v. Valluzzo, 103 Conn. 265, 266, 130 Atl. 126. This can be done by securing an additional finding, if necessary, and amending the assignments of error. Practice Book, § 395. The order appointing a receiver was not a final judgment and we must, therefore, even in the absence of a motion, dismiss the appeal. In re Application of Title & Guaranty Co., 109 Conn. 45, 51, 145 Atl. 151; Curry v. Civil Service Commission of Bridgeport, 125 Conn. 344, 347, note, 5 Atl. (2d) 846.

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Related

Alpha Beta Capital Partners, L.P. v. Pursuit Investment Management, LLC
198 Conn. App. 671 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2020)
Town of Canton v. Cadle Properties of Connecticut, Inc.
77 A.3d 144 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2013)
Ahneman v. Ahneman
706 A.2d 960 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1998)
New England Savings Bank v. Nicotra
644 A.2d 909 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1994)
State v. Ebenstein
593 A.2d 961 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1991)
Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker
487 A.2d 528 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1985)
Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Tucker
469 A.2d 778 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1984)
Watson v. Howard
86 A.2d 67 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1952)
Mathurin v. City of Putnam
71 A.2d 599 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1950)
Hiss v. Hiss
64 A.2d 173 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1949)
Varanelli v. Luddy
42 A.2d 656 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1945)
More v. Western Connecticut Title & Mortgage Co.
29 A.2d 450 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1942)
Cronin v. Gager-Crawford Co.
23 A.2d 149 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 A.2d 395, 126 Conn. 714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-polish-loan-and-industrial-corporation-conn-1940.