From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Young v. Polish Loan and Industrial Corporation

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Feb 23, 1940
126 Conn. 714 (Conn. 1940)

Opinion

Argued February 6, 1940

Decided February 23, 1940.

ACTION to recover damages for personal injuries and asking that a conveyance by the named defendant be set aside as fraudulent, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the jury before Booth, J.; judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendants; thereafter, on plaintiff's motion, the court appointed a receiver of rents, and from this action the defendants appealed. Appeal dismissed.

Samuel Rosenthal, with whom was Monroe S. Gordon, for the appellants (defendants).

Thomas F. McDonough, for the appellee (plaintiff).


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 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 A. 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 A. 126. This can be, 1975

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 A. 151; Curry v. Civil Service Commission of Bridgeport, 125 Conn. 344, 347, note, 5 A.2d 846.


Summaries of

Young v. Polish Loan and Industrial Corporation

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Feb 23, 1940
126 Conn. 714 (Conn. 1940)
Case details for

Young v. Polish Loan and Industrial Corporation

Case Details

Full title:HENRY YOUNG v. POLISH LOAN AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Feb 23, 1940

Citations

126 Conn. 714 (Conn. 1940)
11 A.2d 395

Citing Cases

Watson v. Howard

The defendants have orally and by brief challenged the jurisdiction of this court on the ground that the…

Varanelli v. Luddy

As no alternative writ issued, there was nothing to which to direct the motion to quash. Moreover, as the…