Brewster v. Aldrich
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover for work and labor, brought to the Court of Commou Pleas iu New London County and tried to the court, Noyes, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants for alleged errors in the rulings of the court.
Read the full summary
Action to recover for work and labor, brought to the Court of Commou Pleas iu New London County and tried to the court, Noyes, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants for alleged errors in the rulings of the court. The bill of particulars filed by the plaintiff, was as follows :• H. L. Aldrich & Son. 1889. To D. D. Brewster, Dr. To kalsomining rooms in mill at agreed price $400.00 Aug. 19 To work of 6 men 1 day each, painting 15.00 u 20 u “ u “ . 15.00 21 15.00 22 4 . 10.00 Sept. 6 8 7.50 7. . 7.50 9 7.50 10 1/2 . 3.75 $481.25 The finding stated…
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, C. J.
The bill of particulars was applicable only to the count for work and labor. It was the duty of the plaMtiff to file his bill of particulars and to strike out the other counts, before the defendant could be called upon to plead, and of the trial court to see that this was done, before hearing the cause. New York Breweries Corporation, Limited, v. Baker, 68 Conn. 337, 342.
Under the first assignment no error appears. The finding of facts shows that the plaMtiff had proved the contract referred to in the first item of Ms bill of particulars.
Nor does any error appear under the second assignment.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- New York Breweries Corp. v. BakerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
3Cited by5 opinions
- E. D. Metcalf Co. v. GilbertWyoming Supreme Court · 1911
- Duvall v. BirdenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Merwin Appeal From the Doings of CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
- Alspaugh v. DillonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1910
- Shmilovitz v. BaresSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903