Legal Opinion

Mesite v. International Silver Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 30, 1926PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

The defendant-appellant does not assign as a ground of appeal the correction of the finding; the clerk was therefore in error in causing the transcript of the evidence to be printed. The practice outlined in Biederzycki v. Farrel Foundry & Machine Co., 103 Conn. 701, 708, 131 Atl. 739, should be observed by counsel as well as the clerk.

The only assignment of error legally arising on the appeal is that the injuries suffered by the decedent did not arise out of and in the course of his employment upon the facts set forth in the finding. To determine this question of law we must have before us…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Madore v. New Departure Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  2. Biederzycki v. Farrel Foundry & MacHine Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1926

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Marsh v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Cishowski v. Clayton Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
  3. Greenwood v. LubySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  4. Norton v. Barton's Bias Narrow Fabric Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API