Legal Opinion

Rabinovitz v. Marcus

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 13, 1923PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKeeler, J.

Three of the errors claimed by the defendants relate to the admission of the seven second mortgages upon the various properties, and more particularly the defeasance conditions of the mortgages to prove the total amount of incumbrance existing upon these properties. The ruling of the court upon this evidence is not set out in defendants’ request for a finding, in accordance with General Statutes, § 5826, and Practice Book, p. 307, § 6. It is true that there is in this case a transcript of the entire evidence given on the trial, placed in the record as bearing upon the correction of certain…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Graham v. AndersonIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
  2. Leahy v. CheneySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  3. Wladyka. v. City of WaterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
  4. Friedler v. HekelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1921
  5. Feltenstein v. ErnstAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1906

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Polverari v. PeattConnecticut Appellate Court · 1992
  2. Metcalfe v. TalarskiSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
  3. Makusevich v. GottaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  4. Shiang-Yueng Feng v. Dart Hill Realty, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
  5. Stavnezer v. CooleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932

4 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