Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-227 (2026)

Judgment for or against some of the parties only

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any civil action in which a cause of action is sustained in favor of or against only a part of the parties thereto, judgment may be rendered in favor of or against such parties only; but any defendant against whom no recovery is obtained shall be entitled to costs.

(1949 Rev., S. 7976.)

See Sec. 52-257 re fees of parties in civil actions.

Section includes suits against partners. 25 C. 394. The ground of failure is immaterial. 28 C. 362. Withdrawal of action against one defendant. 31 C. 217. Cited. 43 C. 82; 44 C. 311. Only one bill of costs can be allowed to several defendants. 45 C. 102. Cited. 47 C. 210. Applies to defendants described as partners. 61 C. 48. Applies to joint tortfeasors. 67 C. 255; 73 C. 428; 79 C. 417; 83 C. 27. Statute is permissive. 68 C. 496. Cited. Id., 511. If two defendants join in same defense, they stand or fall together. 75 C. 356. Applied. 99 C. 644. Right to give judgment for or against some only of parties does not affect rules as to removal of causes to U.S. courts. 114 U.S. 59. Cited. 166 C. 325.

Cited. 4 CS 167; 8 CS 30. Limits the taxation in Sec. 52-257 to one bill of costs though there may be more than one prevailing party. Id., 324. Cited. 18 CS 106. Judgment allowable against one party in joint promise action. 30 CS 593.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1974–1977 · leading case: Fraser v. Henninger, 376 A.2d 406 (Conn. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fraser v. Henninger, 376 A.2d 406 (Conn. 1977). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the provisions of § 7-465 which permit an action to be maintained against the municipality and the employee jointly do not mean that a plaintiff may not proceed against the employee alone if for any reason the plaintiff cannot prevail upon the count alleging facts…”

Daniels v. Bd. of Educ., 348 A.2d 671 (Conn. 1974). “Although the interpretation placed on § 52-227 of the General Statutes by § 342 of the Practice Book presents an exception to this holding, that statute and the Practice Book provision are inapplicable to this case by their own terms.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.