393 A.2d 1316 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1977
This case has gone to trial and a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $38,000 on the first count and in the amount of $15,000 on the second count. Subsequently, the defendants filed their notice of appeal. The plaintiff has made an application for a "supplemental prejudgment remedy," because the amounts presently attached are allegedly insufficient to secure the sum of the judgment. The defendants oppose the application on the grounds that, as defined in General Statutes §
The court is faced with the task of determining the meaning of "final judgment" as used in chapter 903a of the General Statutes. The defendants argue that the definition of final judgment as it is used in determining whether appellate remedies are available is applicable. The logic continues that since this case is an appeal there must have been a final judgment and there can be no prejudgment remedy.
There is no indication that the legislature intended final judgment to have the same meaning in this significantly different context. In 1974, the Court of Common Pleas held that there was "no recognized *51
and valid procedure, at this time, for obtaining a supplemental attachment" during the pendency of an action. Levin v. Turner,
The phrase "final judgment" has many different meanings depending upon the context in which it is used. See 16A Words and Phrases, Final Decree or Judgment. Compare Prevedini v. Mobil Oil Corporation,
The application for a prejudgment remedy is granted.