Solomon v. Liquor Control Commission

Full title: BENJAMIN SOLOMON vs. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION

Court: Superior Court Hartford County

Date published: Nov 15, 1940

8 Conn. Supp. 511 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1940)

Opinion

File No. 61783

A motion for judgment, predicated upon the circumstance that the court has granted a motion by the defendant for permission to amend its answer, and apparently addressed to the record as it will stand when such amendment is filed, is premature, since the granting of a motion to amend does not in itself constitute an amendment. Nor does the granting of the motion to amend give sanction to the claims made by counsel in support of the motion with regard to the effect of the amendment upon the fate of the proceedings.

MEMORANDUM FILED NOVEMBER 15, 1940.

Samuel Rosenthal, and William J. Wholean, of Hartford, for the Plaintiff.

Francis A. Pallotti, Attorney General, and Leo V. Gaffney, Assistant Attorney General, for the Defendant.

Memorandum of decision on motion for judgment.

CORNELL, J.

This motion predicates upon the circumstance that the court has granted a motion made by defendant for permission to amend its answer, and is addressed apparently to the record as it will stand, if and when such amendment is filed. It is, consequently, premature, since the mere granting of the motion for leave to amend is not the equivalent of the filing of the amendment thus allowed. Motiejaitis vs. Johnson, 117 Conn. 631, 638. Neither does the granting of the motion have the effect of giving sanction or refusing it, to the claims made by counsel for the defendant in support of such motion, as concerns the effect of the amendment, if and when filed, upon the fate of the proceedings. Smith vs. Furness, 117 Conn. 97, 99, 100. Such amendment is permitted merely in conformity with the liberal practice in that regard in this State. Evans vs. Byrolly Transportation Co., 124 Conn. 10, 12.

If and when the defendant files the amendment to its answer which it has been authorized to do, the plaintiff may plead to the answer as so amended in accordance with the applicable rules. Mazulis vs. Zeldner, 116 Conn. 314, 317, 318. Until the pleadings are thus closed, no question of law can be exposed such as was argued in support of the instant motion.