Legal Opinion

Broderick v. Torkomian

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 12, 1927PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

The complaint alleged that the plaintiff delivered the ring to the defendant in order that the latter might show it to a prospective buyer and, in the first count, a conversion thereof by the defendant and, in a second count, that it was stolen and lost through defendant’s negligence. Only those assignments which relate to the measure of damages, as stated in the charge and reflected in the general verdict, are now pursued. The plaintiff offered evidence that the stone and setting cost him $505, that it was reasonably worth $650, but he told the defendant that he would make the price to him…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Stoll v. Almon C. Judd Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1927

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Griffin v. Nationwide Moving & Storage Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
  2. Klar v. H. & M. Parcel Room, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
  3. Samelson v. Harper's Furs, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
  4. Beaudette and Graham v. TatorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  5. Carter v. Reichlin FurriersConnecticut Superior Court · 1977

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API