From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenberg v. Ingraham

Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, January Term, 1930
Mar 3, 1930
149 A. 892 (Conn. 1930)

Opinion

Argued January 8th, 1930

Decided March 3d 1930.

ACTION to settle the title to real estate, brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County and tried to the court, Yeomans, J.; judgment for the plaintiff and appeal by the defendant. No error.

Charles J. Fowler, for the appellant (defendant).

Morris G. Cohen, for the appellee (plaintiff).


Reasons of appeal one, two, three, five and six relating to the correction of the finding are not in conformity with the rules, Practice Book, page 309, §§ 11 and 12, see Form 3, page 313. Nor were the paragraphs of the motion to correct in proper form, while the exceptions were not accompanied by any excerpts from the evidence. Errors assigned in reasons of appeal four and seven are not specific and are too indefinite and general to be considered. Farrell v. Eastern Machinery Co., 77 Conn. 484, 493, 59 A. 611; Lawton v. Herrick, 83 Conn. 417, 76 A. 986. Nor can we hold on the record as made up that the judgment is clearly wrong; Stevens v. Kelley, 66 Conn. 570, 574, 34 A. 502; Waterbury Lumber Coal Co. v. Hinckley, 75 Conn. 187, 52 A. 739, and upon this ground avoid the irregularity in these assignments of error.


Summaries of

Rosenberg v. Ingraham

Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, January Term, 1930
Mar 3, 1930
149 A. 892 (Conn. 1930)
Case details for

Rosenberg v. Ingraham

Case Details

Full title:MARY ROSENBERG vs. EDWARD D. INGRAHAM

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut First Judicial District, Hartford, January Term, 1930

Date published: Mar 3, 1930

Citations

149 A. 892 (Conn. 1930)
110 Conn. 699