Neville v. Frary
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover the contract price for furnishing and installing twenty-four furnaces in the defendant’s tenement houses, brought to and tried by the Superior Court in Hartford County, Case, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff for $978, and appeal by the defendant.
1Per curiam
The only error complained of arises out of the inclusion of an item of $6 in a judgment for nearly $1,000. If it were so that this item was erroneously allowed, that fact would not warrant either the setting aside of the judgment, or, if it so be that a new trial could be avoided by a direction for the correction in judgment, such intervention by this court. The item is too insignificant to claim our attention, and we give it no other attention than to note its insignificance. De minimis non curat lex is a familiar maxim, frequently applied by us, expressive óf a principle not to be ignored…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mathews v. LivingstonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
- Chany v. HotchkissSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1906
- Town of Old Saybrook v. Town of MilfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
3Cited by2 opinions
- Town of Burlington v. SchwarzmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1884
- Augat v. TetmeyerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919