Arnold v. Kutinsky
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover for a crop of tobacco alleged to have been sold to all the defendants,. brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County where successive demurrers to the substitute and amended complaint, filed by all the defendants except Case, were sustained (Reed and Curtis, Js.), and judgment rendered for the defendants, from which plaintiff appealed. This appeal is taken simply for error apparent on the face of the record.
Read the full summary
Action to recover for a crop of tobacco alleged to have been sold to all the defendants,. brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County where successive demurrers to the substitute and amended complaint, filed by all the defendants except Case, were sustained (Reed and Curtis, Js.), and judgment rendered for the defendants, from which plaintiff appealed. This appeal is taken simply for error apparent on the face of the record. The portions of the judgment record claimed as showing error, are, in substance, as follows: The action was returnable to the Superior Court on the first Tuesday…
1Opinion of the CourtHamersley, J.
Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the amended complaint are sufficient in substance to state a good cause of action. The trial court, therefore, erred in sustaining the demurrer to this complaint.
The fact that the defendants entered into an agreement between themselves, as alleged in paragraph 1, is wholly unconnected with any other allegation in the complaint, and, unconnected with any other allegation, it is so entirely irrelevant as to be merely impertinent surplusage; its allegation can have no effect even in respect to the admission of evidence upon the trial of the cause of action stated. No…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Village of Chester v. LeonardSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- Mitchell v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1901
- Boland v. O'neil, Admr.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Burke v. WrightSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
- Sidney Novelty Co. v. HanlonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rossignol v. Danbury School of Aeronautics, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
- Royce v. Town of WestportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1981
- Good Humor Corp. v. RicciutiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1970
- Hubert v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
- Coe v. KutinskySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.