TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Padaigis v. Kane

Stanley Padaigis v. Maggie Kane.

Padaigis v. Kane, 4 A.2d 335 (Conn. 1939)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 7, 1939
Judges
Maltbie, Hinman, Avery, Brown, Jennings
Citations
4 A.2d 335125 Conn. 727
Cited by 6 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sued upon a note for $5000, the defendant pleaded a general denial, and the trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff to recover the amount of the note with interest. Two days later, during the same term of court, the defendant made a motion to open the judgment in order to enable her to offer further evidence and to file an amendment to the answer specially pleading lack of consideration for the note. The trial court opened the judgment but did not then give permission for the filing of the special defense. Some time later it was filed but under what circumstances the record does not disclose. Another trial was had and the court sustained the plea of lack of consideration. The plaintiff appealed but did not obtain a finding of facts. The only claims of error pursued before us are that the trial court erred as matter of law in permitting the filing of the special *728 defense. The judgment having been opened the case stood as though no judgment had been rendered.

Simpson v. Y. M. C. A. of Bridgeport, 118 Conn. 414, 418 , 172 Atl. 855 . Upon this record we cannot hold that there was any such inconsistency in the defendant’s pleading as to prevent her from advancing the defense of lack of consideration.

Hoard v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 122 Conn. 185, 191 , 188 Atl. 269 . If, as is suggested by the record, the failure specially to plead that defense prevented the defendant from offering evidence upon that issue at the original trial, there was ample justification for the allowance of the amendment to the answer.

Ideal Financing Association v. LaBonte, 120 Conn. 190, 195 , 180 Atl. 300 .

There is no error.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1950: 11974: 11976: 11985: 12005: 12006: 119502026peak 1950 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sasso v. Aleshin495 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 1985)
  2. Ral Management, Inc. v. Valley View Associates899 A.2d 586 (Conn. 2006)
  3. State v. Phillips353 A.2d 706 (Conn. 1974)
  4. Milford Trust Co. v. Greenberg77 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1950)
  5. State v. Gillespie884 A.2d 418 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)
  6. Prospect Realty, Inc. v. Bishop365 A.2d 638 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1976)

Most recent

  1. Ral Management, Inc. v. Valley View Associates899 A.2d 586 (Conn. 2006)
  2. State v. Gillespie884 A.2d 418 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005)
  3. Sasso v. Aleshin495 A.2d 1066 (Conn. 1985)
  4. Prospect Realty, Inc. v. Bishop365 A.2d 638 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1976)
  5. State v. Phillips353 A.2d 706 (Conn. 1974)
  6. Milford Trust Co. v. Greenberg77 A.2d 80 (Conn. 1950)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Hoard v. Sears Roebuck Co., 188 A. 269 (Conn. 1936) 40
Ideal Fin. Ass'n v. Labonte, 180 A. 300 (Conn. 1935) 31
Simpson v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n, 172 A. 855 (Conn. 1934) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list