Donnarumma v. Korkin
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover a real-estate broker’s commission, brought to the City Court of Waterbury which rendered judgment in favor of the defendant Simon Korkin and against Ray Korkin, from which the latter appealed to the District Court of Waterbury, Peasley, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the defendant (Ray Korkin), and appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the District Court.
1Per curiam
Some of the paragraphs of plaintiff’s draft-finding should have been marked "proven” instead of "not proven, ” but were these changes made in the finding the judgment must remain unaffected.
The trial court found that the defendant never promised to pay the broker’s commission for which plaintiff sues. This finding was made on conflicting evidence, and since it cannot be disturbed it concludes the case.
Plaintiff’s fifth reason of appeal is that he is aggrieved by the judgment rendered in favor of Simon Korkin in the City Court. That judgment was not appealed from by him. It therefore became a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bunnell v. Berlin Iron Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1895
- Sargent & Co. v. New Haven Steamboat Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1894
- Chapin v. BabcockSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
3Cited by8 opinions
- Marcil v. A. H. Merriman & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Rose v. HeislerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1934
- Brown v. General Laundry Service, Inc.Connecticut Superior Court · 1955
- Gruber v. FriedmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Town of Manchester v. Rogers Paper Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.