Reader v. Grossman
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover a balance of $72 alleged to be due for work done and materials furnished under a building contract, brought to and tried by the City Court of Meriden, Dunne, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $9, and appeal by the defendant. Error and new trial ordered.
1Opinion of the CourtCurtis, J.
Under General Statutes, §5549, the matter of calling in a competent stenographer to take the testimony in a trial in a City Court, is a matter exclusively within the discretion of the judge of the court; hence no claim of error can be predicated upon his refusal to do so.
The bill of particulars filed by the plaintiff under the common counts was as follows:—
Bill of Particulars.
Contract to build store at 300 Center
Street, and front and back steps $460.00
Extra work—new railing and post 12.00
$472.00
Credit
By cash 400.00
Balance $ 72.00
In the answer the defendant alleged, in effect, that the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brosty v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Asbestos Products Corporation v. MatsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
3Cited by6 opinions
- Siller v. PhilipSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Bisi v. American Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
- Fernandez v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Pyskoty v. SobusiakSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- De Santo v. BurkleSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.