Hotchkiss v. Devita
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtKeeler, J.
The recovery had in this action is founded upon the finding of the trial court that the DeVita brothers and English were partners operating under the trade name of DeVita’s Auto Exchange and that plaintiff dealt with the partnership. This conclusion is challenged by the appellants upon the grounds to be shortly stated as contained in their brief and presented upon argument. The exceptions to the action of the trial court as regards the correction of the finding are not meritorious. The finding was corrected as to two of the claims of the motion, and the result is incorporated in the above…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Morgan v. FarrelSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1890
- Russo v. McAvineySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
- Spaulding Manufacturing Co. v. GodboldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Union Trust Co. v. McKeonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
- Dimon v. RomeoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. South Windsor Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1976
- Banks v. WatrousSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1948
- Active Market, Inc. v. LeightonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Bradshaw v. SextonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- MacChio v. BreunigSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.