Legal Opinion

Bilton Machine Tool Co. v. United Illuminating Co.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 6, 1930PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeler, C. J.

We have incorporated in the foregoing statement of facts the essential facts found by the trial court as corrected by us in a few particulars, the principal corrections including the striking out of most of paragraphs sixty-four, eighty, eighty-one, eighty-two and eighty-three relating to the knowledge of Mr. Bilton and the plaintiff and adding the substance of the facts, without the conclusions, as set forth in paragraphs sixty-five, seventy, seventy-three and seventy-four, sixty-six, sixty-six A and sixty-eight of appellant’s draft-finding.

The plaintiff seeks to recover a certain amount of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Call Publishing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
  3. Silkman v. Board of Water CommissionersNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  4. New York Telephone Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1911
  5. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Application of Hawaii Elec. Light Co., Inc.Hawaii Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Ford v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Kliks v. Dalles CityOregon Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Pitt v. Town of StamfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  5. Texas Power & Light Co. v. Hilltop Baking Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1935

11 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