From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hilts v. Taft

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Apr 28, 1964
200 A.2d 483 (Conn. 1964)

Opinion

The defendant entered an appearance by counsel in the action against him but failed to appear at the trial and was therefore defaulted. On his appeal from the default judgment and from the court's refusal to open the default, the only ground of invalidity urged in his brief was that there was no military service affidavit. Since this claim was made for the first time in his brief, it was not entitled to consideration. Furthermore, a military service affidavit is required only in the case of a defendant who has not entered an appearance.

Argued April 9, 1964

Decided April 28, 1964

Action for the price of corporate stock, alleged to have been sold to the defendant, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Fairfield County at Stamford, where the court, Armentano, J., rendered judgment for the plaintiff upon default, and a motion to open the judgment was denied, Radin, J.; from the denial of the motion and from the judgment the defendant appealed. No error.

Lawrence P. Weisman, for the appellant (defendant).

Sidney Vogel, for the appellee (plaintiff).


From the time that this action was commenced by complaint dated October 9, 1957, the defendant, who is a member of the New York bar, has had seven different attorneys or firms of attorneys enter general appearances for him, in addition to an earlier special appearance by one of them and his own general appearance pro se. This is his third appeal to this court. On June 8, 1961, he purported to appeal from the denial of a motion to cite in additional defendants, and he withdrew the appeal on September 26, 1961. On March 28, 1963, he appealed from the judgment and withdrew that appeal on May 4, 1963.

On November 20, 1962, the court defaulted the defendant for failure to appear for trial, and on March 6, 1963, following a hearing in damages, it rendered judgment for the plaintiff. When the default was entered, there were on file general appearances by two attorneys representing the defendant. On June 15, 1963, the defendant moved to open the default on the ground that he had not received notice of the assignment of the case for trial. The court denied the motion on June 21, 1963, and the defendant has appealed. The claims made in the trial court and in the assignments of error have been abandoned. Harry v. Bidwell, 149 Conn. 93, 94, 175 A.2d 704. The defendant's brief asserts only that the default judgment is invalid because of the lack of an affidavit allegedly required under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940. 54 Stat. 1180, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. 520(1) (Sup. 4, 1962); Practice Book, 1963, 284. Because this claim is made for the first time in the brief, we do not consider it. Practice Book, 1963, 652; Whitney Theatre Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 150 Conn. 285, 290, 189 A.2d 396; Zavisza v. Hastings, 143 Conn. 40, 44, 118 A.2d 902; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. 305. Furthermore, the affidavit is required only in the case of nonappearing defendants. 54 Stat. 1180, as amended, 50 U.S.C. App. 520(1) (Sup. 4, 1962); Practice Book, 1963, 284.


Summaries of

Hilts v. Taft

Supreme Court of Connecticut
Apr 28, 1964
200 A.2d 483 (Conn. 1964)
Case details for

Hilts v. Taft

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT HILTS v. ALLEN R. TAFT

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut

Date published: Apr 28, 1964

Citations

200 A.2d 483 (Conn. 1964)
200 A.2d 483

Citing Cases

Munch v. Willametz

We are not required to consider errors which are not assigned or to pass on questions which were not ruled on…

In re Washington

Compare, Akers v. Bonfasi, 629 F.Supp 1212, 1214, fn3 (M.D. Tenn. 1985) (jurisdictional), withState v. Smith,…