Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

97 Conn. 222

116 A 189

Nachamchik v. Lipschitz

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided February 21, 1922

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1922-02-21

Action to recover the reasonable value of services rendered and materials furnished, brought to and tried by the District Court of Waterbury, Makepeace, Deputy-Judge; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiffs for $ 530, and appeal by the defendant.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1923

1 state decisions

Relies on Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Cambell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

No error · Decided 1922-02-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The first two assignments of error relate to rulings on evidence but these do not appear in the finding and hence are not before the court; the next nine assignments comprise alleged errors in finding the facts, but neither the corrections desired, nor the-matter to be stricken out nor that added, are set out in the appeal as required by the statute, rules of practice, and our decisions thereunder. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Cambell, 97 Conn. 251, 116 Atl. 186.

¶2 The final assignment of error, that the court erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff, is not well *223 taken, since the facts found abundantly support the judgment rendered.

¶3 The appeal is so plainly defective that the trial court ought not to have certified the evidence. Appeals taken in reliance upon the method provided by General Statutes, § 5832, must conform to the established practice; otherwise the trial court should refuse to certify the evidence.

¶4 There is no error.

/97/conn/222 · .json · Public domain