Mad River Co. v. Pracney
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtKeeler, J.
Counsel who argued the case in this court for the appellant did not participate in the trial of the cause in the court below. In making up the appeal record he stated that certain claims of law bearing upon the plaintiff’s contention were made at the trial. That they were not so made is established by the part of the court’s statement last above quoted in the finding of facts. Disregarding these claims and the reasons of appeal founded thereon, we find that the grounds of appeal are reduced in effect to one, that is, whether the facts found by the court as matter of law are ample to sustain…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mill River Woolen Manufacturing Co. v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1867
- Olesen v. BeckanstinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919
3Cited by7 opinions
- Aczas v. Stuart Heights, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Gager v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
- Hurlburt v. BussemeySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
- Ace Equipment Sales, Inc. v. BuccinoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2005
- Ace Equipment Sales, Inc. v. BuccinoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.