Legal Opinion

Montambault v. Waterbury & Milldale Tramway Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided March 1, 1923PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The case is one of conflicting evidence, so plain that there was not the slightest justification for the appeal from the denial of the motion to set aside the verdict. The taking of an appeal upon this ground, thus compelling the printing of the entire evidence, was an abuse of the right of appeal.

The issue of the negligence of the defendant as well as the issue of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, were, upon the evidence offered by the parties, conclusions for the jury to draw and not conclusions for the court to draw as matter of law; and therefore the error assigned in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Monroe v. Hartford Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
  2. Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
  3. Smith v. Connecticut Railway & Lighting Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1907
  4. Feehan v. SlaterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
  5. Nugent v. New Haven Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1900

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Kinderavich v. PalmerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  2. Gonchar v. KelsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  3. Holderfield v. Rummage Bros. Trucking Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. Hinch v. ElliottSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
  5. Bjorkman v. Town of NewingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API