Miller v. Perlroth
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff through an alleged conspiracy of the defendants to cheat and defraud him, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Reed, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $5,000, and appeal by two of the three defendants.
Read the full summary
Action to recover damages sustained by the plaintiff through an alleged conspiracy of the defendants to cheat and defraud him, brought to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the jury before Reed, J.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $5,000, and appeal by two of the three defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants, Perlroth, Ruderman and Cohen, entered into a conspiracy to defraud the plaintiff, and for that purpose to induce him, by false representations as to the value of certain land owned by Perlroth, to tajee title thereto and to give back a demand…
1Opinion of the CourtBeach, J.
The motions to set aside the verdict and in arrest of judgment were properly denied. In Pelton v. Goldberg, 81 Conn. 280, 70 Atl. 1020, the form of verdict used by the jury was entitled “Oliver N. Pelton vs. David Goldberg et al.,” and below this was the following: “In this case the jury find the issues for the plaintiff, and therefore find for the plaintiff to recover -damages.” It was held that this was properly treated by the court as a verdict against both defendants, who made no objection when the verdict was returned and accepted.
It must be admitted on the authority of this case that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dwy v. Connecticut Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
- Pelton v. GoldbergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cascella v. Jay James Camera Shop, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- State v. EspositoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- England v. Universal Finance Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1946