Legal Opinion

Dombrosky v. Nytko

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 16, 1928Published

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam.

None of the corrections of the finding, which are substantial, can be allowed, since they were made on conflicting evidence. The claims of the appellant which he denominates claims of law—that the plaintiff did not bring the purchaser and the defendant together in this transaction and was not the procuring cause of the sale—are conclusions of fact, not of law, since they are legitimate inferences or conclusions of fact from the subordinate facts. A conclusion that a person is the “procuring cause” of a sale is one of fact unless the judge in drawing the conclusion from the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hoadley v. Savings BankSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
  2. Duncan v. KearneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1900
  3. Williams v. ClowesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902

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

Powered by the Exa API