Reboul v. Chalker
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit for goods sold, brought against James E. Chalker and N. A. Cowdrey, as partners under the name of “ J. E. Chalker.” The goods were sold on the 29th of August and 2d of October, 1856. The defence was wholly made by Cowdrey, who denied the existence of the copartnership.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit for goods sold, brought against James E. Chalker and N. A. Cowdrey, as partners under the name of “ J. E. Chalker.” The goods were sold on the 29th of August and 2d of October, 1856. The defence was wholly made by Cowdrey, who denied the existence of the copartnership. On the trial to the jury, the following contract between the defendants was read in evidence : “ Articles of copartnership made and concluded this 17th day of April, 1855, between J. E. Chalker and N. A. Cowdrey, both of the city of New Haven. Whereas it is the intention of the parties to form a copartnership for the…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The defendants raise the preliminary question, in respect to the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the evidence in the case, whether the court will consider the motion at all, for the reason that the judge of the superior court has not certified that he is of opinion that a new trial ought to be granted, or that the verdict was, in his opinion, against the evidence in the case. It is true that by the statute, (Rev. Stat., tit. 1, § 155,) the superior court is only authorized to make a statement of the evidence, and report the same to the supreme court of errors…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bissell v. DickersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
- Butte Hardware Co. v. WallaceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
- Holgate v. DownerWyoming Supreme Court · 1899
- Malley v. Atlantic Fire & Marine InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1883