Case Name: Francis E. Beach vs. The Beach Hotel Corporation
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1932-06-23
Citations: 115 Conn. 708
Docket Number: 
Parties: Francis E. Beach vs. The Beach Hotel Corporation.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 708–709

Head Matter:
Francis E. Beach vs. The Beach Hotel Corporation.
Maltbie, C. J., Haines, Hinman, Banks and Avery, Js.
Decided June 23d, 1932.
Motion to Erase Appeal.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
An attempt is made in this case to appeal from a ruling of the trial court granting a motion to strike from the jury list the trial of certain issues raised by a cross-complaint. In this court a motion has been made to erase the appeal from the docket because the ruling was not such a final judgment as furnishes the basis for an appeal. The ruling of the trial court did not conclude the rights of the parties so that further proceedings would not affect them. The parties were still in court; the issues in the case were still open and might be fully litigated; and judgment might still be rendered in favor of the appellant. The ruling of the trial court was not such a final judgment as afforded the basis for an appeal to this court. Banca Commerciale Italiana Trust Co. v. Westchester Artistic Works, Inc., 108 Conn. 304, 307, 142 Atl. 838; Martin v. Sherwood, 74 Conn. 202, 203, 50 Atl. 564; Denton v. Danbury, 48 Conn. 368, 371; Costecski v. Skarulis, 103 Conn. 762, 131 Atl. 398. This accords with the uniform practice to raise questions presented by such rulings upon an appeal from the final judgment upon the merits of the case. Noren v. Wood, 72 Conn. 96, 43 Atl. 649; McKay v. Fair Haven & W. R. Co., 75 Conn. 608, 54 Atl. 923; Fuller v. Johnson, 80 Conn. 493, 68 Atl. 977; Rowell v. Ross, 89 Conn. 201, 93 Atl. 236; S. C., 91 Conn. 702, 101 Atl. 333; Thompson v. Main, 102 Conn. 640, 129 Atl. 786; Fine v. Moomjian, 114 Conn. 226, 158 Atl. 241.
The motion to erase the appeal is granted.