Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

92 Conn. 380

102 A 767

Libretto v. Serifini

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 5, 1918

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1918-01-05

Action to recover for services as a real-estate broker in procuring a purchaser of the defendant’s property, brought to and tried, by the Court of Common Pleas in Hartford County, Smith, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $725, and appeal by the defendant.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 1947

3 state decisions

Relies on Southey v. Dowling

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

No error · Decided 1918-01-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 It is not denied on the defendant’s behalf that upon the facts found the plaintiff is entitled to recover from him the amount for which judgment was rendered against him. The only error assigned in the reasons of appeal is the failure of the court to hold that *382 the action was prematurely brought and to dismiss it for that cause. That assignment of error, purely technical and unrelated to the substantial rights of the parties, is sufficiently met by the statement that it is not one which our rules of practice entitle him to pursue, since he did not plead nonmaturity of the cause of action either in abatement or in bar. His only pleading was by way of answer, confined to denial and a special defense asserting that the plaintiff’s employment was for a stipulated price. Southey v. Dowling, 70 Conn. 153, 157, 39 Atl. 113; General Statutes, § 609; Rules of Practice (1908) p. 250, § 160.

¶2 There is no error.

/92/conn/380 · .json · Public domain