
    Daniel N. Beard v. Oliver W. Beard Daniel Beard v. Oliver W. Beard Daniel N. Beard v. Oliver W. Beard et al. Daniel Beard v. B. N. Beard Co., Inc., et al.
    House, C. J., Loiselle, MacDonald, Bogdanski and Longo, Js.
    Argued February 4
    decision released February 25, 1975
    
      Raymond B. Rubens, for the appellants (defendants).
    
      Edward M. Sheehy, for the appellee (plaintiff).
   Per Curiam.

These four eases were consolidated by stipulation in open court and on April 4, 1973, the court rendered judgment on all four cases, following a stipulation by the parties which was approved by the court. By motion filed September 13, 1973, and amended September 14, 1973, the defendants moved to open and set aside the judgment. The court denied this motion and the defendants appealed to this court from that denial.

The decision of this* court in Poneleit v. Dudas, 141 Conn. 413, 416-17, 106 A.2d 479, is dispositive of the merits of the appeal. As that ease reiterated: “ tit is well settled that, unless proceedings looMng to modification of a judgment are started before the expiration of the term of court at which it was entered, a court has no power to modify it in matters of substance, as distinguished from the correction of clerical errors, after the expiration of the term, except by consent or waiver of the parties or in proceedings for a new trial,’ ” and added: “As the term of court during which the judgment was rendered had expired at the time the motion to open the judgment was filed, the trial court did not have the power to grant it and did not err in denying it.”

There is no error.  