Penfield Manufacturing Co. v. Christoni
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtKinmonth, J.
This action was brought to recover for damage to a large machine while it was being transported by a common carrier. In spite of the fact that the defendant assigns error in two of the eleven paragraphs of the finding of subordinate facts and in the denial of his motion to correct eleven paragraphs of the finding, it is apparent that the finding as made is amply supported by the evidence and must stand. As we have frequently said, such a wholesale attack on the finding seldom has merit. The defendant has assigned error in the court’s failure to strike certain paragraphs of the finding as “not…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jarrett v. JarrettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Wells Laundry & Linen Supply Co. v. Acme Fast Freight, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Mercier v. American Refractories & Crucible CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
- Setaro Motors, Inc. v. IntelisanoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
- Atlas v. WhithamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Parrott Chemical Co. v. St. Johnsbury Trucking Co.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1968