Sargent v. Smith

Sargent v. Smith
272 Conn. 722 (Conn. 2005) Cited 12 times
Denying plaintiff's claim in second appeal that he would have been entitled to money collected by receiver during pendency of first appeal, and noting that "no equitable considerations warrant a contrary result" because same parties were involved in both actions, that plaintiff could have alerted trial court in first action to his claim, and that plaintiff could have taken appeal challenging actions of receiver when actions actually occurred
Following the denial of that motion, the defendant petitioned this court for certification to appeal, which we granted, limited to the following issues: Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of the defendant, and, if so, did the Appellate Court properly direct judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $40,881.37, rather than remand the case for a new trial. Sargent v. Smith, 266 Conn. 926, 835 A.2d 476 (2003). We agree with the defendant that the Appellate Court improperly reversed the judgment of the trial court because the referee reasonably had found that the plaintiff failed to prove that he would have been entitled to, and indeed would have recovered, the money held by the receiver of rents had the receiver not paid the governmental authority that was owed the water charges.