Rusinak v. Paushter
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtMurphy, J.
No additions to the finding can be made, since neither brief included an appendix containing the evidence relevant to the changes claimed. Practice Book, 1963, § 717; State v. Pundy, 147 Conn. 7, 9, 156 A.2d 193; Vigue v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 147 Conn. 305, 306, 160 A.2d *300484. The other corrections sought in the finding are not warranted.
On October 9, 1952, the plaintiffs entered into a written contract to purchase from the defendant a newly constructed house at 76 Ashton Street, on the corner of Ashton and Ardmore Streets in Bridgeport. There were then no sewers or sidewalks…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. PundySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
- Vigue v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
3Cited by1 opinion
- Marshall v. Town of NewingtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968