Legal Opinion
Rowley v. Salladin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 31, 1953PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
The plaintiff had judgment of strict foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. The named defendant, hereinafter called the defendant, and the plaintiff have appealed. Both parties have attacked the finding, but neither can prevail on this issue since the additions they request involve facts which are neither admitted nor undisputed. Practice Book § 397. The single paragraph of the finding which the defendant seeks to strike as found without evidence is immaterial in the view we take of the case.
The finding is as follows: On or about December 28, 1949, the defendant entered into a written contract…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Avery v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Tice v. MooreSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1909
- Waterbury Lumber & Coal Co. v. CooganSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1901
- Drazen Lumber Co. v. JenteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Fabrizio v. FabrizioSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1946
3Cited by5 opinions
- Seaman v. Climate Control Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Starkel v. Edward Balf Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
- Biller v. HarrisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- Ficken v. Edward's, Inc.Connecticut Superior Court · 1962
- Ficken v. Edward's, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1962